By Thierry Hasse, Chief Investment Officer
Elevage Partners | June 22, 2026
The Warsh Era Begins
Kevin Warsh chaired his first Federal Open Market Committee meeting on June 17. We previewed it last week as the first real read on the framework he intends to build. The read, it turns out, is that he is not ready to show it.
The Fed held rates at 3.50%–3.75%, where they have sat since December 2025, on a unanimous vote. What was not dovish was everything underneath it. Warsh shortened the policy statement, and the new projections showed a clear hawkish turn: a majority of officials now expect at least one rate hike before year-end, alongside higher inflation forecasts (Source: news reports on the June FOMC). Warsh himself appears to have withheld his own projection, leaving the committee’s stated direction without its chairman’s voice behind it.
Chief Investment Officer Thierry Hasse
The market read it quickly. The 2-year Treasury yield, the instrument most sensitive to near-term Fed expectations, rose about 15 basis points on Wednesday to 4.20%, and the move held the next day rather than fading (Source: Financial Modeling Prep). The 10-year, which better tracks longer-run growth and inflation, rose only about 6 basis points. The front end repriced; the long end shrugged.
What markets found in the Warsh debut was not a new regime but a placeholder: an intent to deliver price stability and overhaul Fed operations, with neither a number nor a timeline attached. For clients watching the rate outlook, that ambiguity is itself the condition.
The Iran Agreement, and What It Leaves Unresolved
President Donald Trump said the agreement he reached with Iran would leave the Strait of Hormuz “permanently toll-free,” and warned that without a final nuclear accord the United States would restart military strikes (Source: The New York Times, June 14, 2026). The memorandum signed on June 17 is narrower than the claim. It halts fighting and guarantees safe passage for commercial vessels for 60 days, then hands the question of who administers the strait to a later dialogue among Iran, Oman, and Gulf states (Source: Bloomberg, June 18, 2026). It settled a pause, not the things that matter.
“Open” frayed within days. Iran stood up a new maritime authority requiring its permission and mandatory insurance to transit, the insurance free for now but with the right to charge reserved for later (Source: Bloomberg, June 19, 2026). Then on Saturday, Iran declared the strait closed again over Israel’s strikes in Lebanon. Yet the oil kept moving, and not by a trickle. Crude flowed through Hormuz over the weekend at the fastest pace since the war began, roughly 20 million barrels across three days, even as Tehran insisted the waterway was shut (Source: Bloomberg, June 22, 2026). By Monday, after all-night talks in Switzerland, both sides reported major progress, the United States had waived sanctions on some Iranian oil and lifted its naval blockade, and negotiators pointed to a mechanism meant to keep Hormuz open (Source: Bloomberg, June 22, 2026). The announcement said shut. The tankers sailed.
Markets read it the same way. By midday Monday, Brent had dropped below $78 a barrel, down about 3.5% on the session and roughly 30% for the year, with West Texas Intermediate slipping under $74 (Source: Bloomberg, June 22, 2026). We would not mistake that for resolution. We believe the strait stays open over time, but the path is tenuous, and the premium in energy is not going to zero. Official forecasters are more cautious still; the U.S. Energy Information Administration assumes limited traffic into the third quarter before flows normalize in early 2027 (Source: EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook, June 2026). Investors pricing in a clean resolution should weigh the distance between a signed memorandum and a settled region.
SpaceX: A $2.4 Trillion Question
Last week we asked whether SpaceX’s valuation reflected genuine technological leadership or narrative substituting for value. A week of trading has not answered the question. It has only raised the stakes.
The listing raised $75 billion at $135 a share, the largest IPO on record. The stock opened at $150 on its June 12 debut, ran to $225.64 intraday on June 16, and closed last week near $185, up about 37% (Source: Financial Modeling Prep). That puts SpaceX near $2.4 trillion in market value, among the most valuable public companies in the world, for a business that is not yet profitable and whose only consistent earner is Starlink.
Demand was enormous and thin at once. The offering drew more than $100 billion of retail orders against an allocation that set aside only about a fifth of the deal for individuals (Source: Bloomberg, June 12, 2026), so many who ordered through their brokerages were filled at a fraction, or not at all. Even that figure was modest by global standards, trailing the retail frenzy around recent listings in mainland China and Hong Kong. The price carries the same enthusiasm, at more than 130 times sales. None of it tells you what SpaceX is worth. It tells you how much conviction, and how much borrowed money, now rides on businesses that mostly do not exist yet: orbital data centers, xAI integration, and a Mars program no investor can underwrite.
In our view, the listing was a genuine market moment and a compelling long-term business. It is also the clearest example yet of the question hanging over this market: how much of what is being priced reflects what the company will deliver, and how much is narrative the price has not yet earned? As we write, the market has begun to answer. The shares have fallen three days running, down as much as 10% in Monday trading as the U.S. market reopened, even as the company lines up tens of billions in new borrowing to fund its AI ambitions (Source: Bloomberg, June 22, 2026). A week ago the question was whether the price had run ahead of the delivery. The tape is starting to test it.
Looking Ahead
Three stories, one pattern: in each, what was announced has outrun what arrived.
A new Fed chair signaled a hawkish turn without saying when the Fed will act.
A signed agreement promised an open waterway, then Iran declared it closed even as the tankers kept sailing.
The largest IPO in history priced a company among the world’s most valuable on businesses that still lie mostly ahead of it.
The same question runs beneath all three, and beneath the debate over artificial intelligence: how much of what is being priced will the world actually deliver?
That gap, between what is announced and what arrives, is the condition we are managing for the rest of 2026. It is uncomfortable, and it is real. Our response is not to guess which headline resolves first. It is to hold the valuation discipline that keeps us from paying tomorrow’s promised price for today’s uncertain delivery.
Important Disclosure(s)
Holdings Disclosure: Elevage Partners and/or its clients may hold positions in securities referenced in this commentary. The information contained herein represents the views of Elevage Partners at a specific point in time and is based on information believed to be reliable. No representation or warranty is made concerning the accuracy of any data compiled herein In addition, there can be no guarantee that any projection, forecast, or opinion in these materials will be realized. Any statement non-factual in nature constitutes only current opinion which is subject to change. These materials are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Any reference to a security listed herein does not constitute a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold such security. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The historical returns of any securities and/or sectors mentioned in this commentary are not necessarily indicative of their future performance.
The market’s question gap widens
Home / The market’s question gap widens
By Thierry Hasse, Chief Investment Officer
Elevage Partners | June 22, 2026
The Warsh Era Begins
Kevin Warsh chaired his first Federal Open Market Committee meeting on June 17. We previewed it last week as the first real read on the framework he intends to build. The read, it turns out, is that he is not ready to show it.
The Fed held rates at 3.50%–3.75%, where they have sat since December 2025, on a unanimous vote. What was not dovish was everything underneath it. Warsh shortened the policy statement, and the new projections showed a clear hawkish turn: a majority of officials now expect at least one rate hike before year-end, alongside higher inflation forecasts (Source: news reports on the June FOMC). Warsh himself appears to have withheld his own projection, leaving the committee’s stated direction without its chairman’s voice behind it.
The market read it quickly. The 2-year Treasury yield, the instrument most sensitive to near-term Fed expectations, rose about 15 basis points on Wednesday to 4.20%, and the move held the next day rather than fading (Source: Financial Modeling Prep). The 10-year, which better tracks longer-run growth and inflation, rose only about 6 basis points. The front end repriced; the long end shrugged.
What markets found in the Warsh debut was not a new regime but a placeholder: an intent to deliver price stability and overhaul Fed operations, with neither a number nor a timeline attached. For clients watching the rate outlook, that ambiguity is itself the condition.
The Iran Agreement, and What It Leaves Unresolved
President Donald Trump said the agreement he reached with Iran would leave the Strait of Hormuz “permanently toll-free,” and warned that without a final nuclear accord the United States would restart military strikes (Source: The New York Times, June 14, 2026). The memorandum signed on June 17 is narrower than the claim. It halts fighting and guarantees safe passage for commercial vessels for 60 days, then hands the question of who administers the strait to a later dialogue among Iran, Oman, and Gulf states (Source: Bloomberg, June 18, 2026). It settled a pause, not the things that matter.
“Open” frayed within days. Iran stood up a new maritime authority requiring its permission and mandatory insurance to transit, the insurance free for now but with the right to charge reserved for later (Source: Bloomberg, June 19, 2026). Then on Saturday, Iran declared the strait closed again over Israel’s strikes in Lebanon. Yet the oil kept moving, and not by a trickle. Crude flowed through Hormuz over the weekend at the fastest pace since the war began, roughly 20 million barrels across three days, even as Tehran insisted the waterway was shut (Source: Bloomberg, June 22, 2026). By Monday, after all-night talks in Switzerland, both sides reported major progress, the United States had waived sanctions on some Iranian oil and lifted its naval blockade, and negotiators pointed to a mechanism meant to keep Hormuz open (Source: Bloomberg, June 22, 2026). The announcement said shut. The tankers sailed.
Markets read it the same way. By midday Monday, Brent had dropped below $78 a barrel, down about 3.5% on the session and roughly 30% for the year, with West Texas Intermediate slipping under $74 (Source: Bloomberg, June 22, 2026). We would not mistake that for resolution. We believe the strait stays open over time, but the path is tenuous, and the premium in energy is not going to zero. Official forecasters are more cautious still; the U.S. Energy Information Administration assumes limited traffic into the third quarter before flows normalize in early 2027 (Source: EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook, June 2026). Investors pricing in a clean resolution should weigh the distance between a signed memorandum and a settled region.
SpaceX: A $2.4 Trillion Question
Last week we asked whether SpaceX’s valuation reflected genuine technological leadership or narrative substituting for value. A week of trading has not answered the question. It has only raised the stakes.
The listing raised $75 billion at $135 a share, the largest IPO on record. The stock opened at $150 on its June 12 debut, ran to $225.64 intraday on June 16, and closed last week near $185, up about 37% (Source: Financial Modeling Prep). That puts SpaceX near $2.4 trillion in market value, among the most valuable public companies in the world, for a business that is not yet profitable and whose only consistent earner is Starlink.
Demand was enormous and thin at once. The offering drew more than $100 billion of retail orders against an allocation that set aside only about a fifth of the deal for individuals (Source: Bloomberg, June 12, 2026), so many who ordered through their brokerages were filled at a fraction, or not at all. Even that figure was modest by global standards, trailing the retail frenzy around recent listings in mainland China and Hong Kong. The price carries the same enthusiasm, at more than 130 times sales. None of it tells you what SpaceX is worth. It tells you how much conviction, and how much borrowed money, now rides on businesses that mostly do not exist yet: orbital data centers, xAI integration, and a Mars program no investor can underwrite.
In our view, the listing was a genuine market moment and a compelling long-term business. It is also the clearest example yet of the question hanging over this market: how much of what is being priced reflects what the company will deliver, and how much is narrative the price has not yet earned? As we write, the market has begun to answer. The shares have fallen three days running, down as much as 10% in Monday trading as the U.S. market reopened, even as the company lines up tens of billions in new borrowing to fund its AI ambitions (Source: Bloomberg, June 22, 2026). A week ago the question was whether the price had run ahead of the delivery. The tape is starting to test it.
Looking Ahead
Three stories, one pattern: in each, what was announced has outrun what arrived.
The same question runs beneath all three, and beneath the debate over artificial intelligence: how much of what is being priced will the world actually deliver?
That gap, between what is announced and what arrives, is the condition we are managing for the rest of 2026. It is uncomfortable, and it is real. Our response is not to guess which headline resolves first. It is to hold the valuation discipline that keeps us from paying tomorrow’s promised price for today’s uncertain delivery.