David Wolf

I've been a trader since 1986. My weekly newsletter is called the wolf of wall street and its goal is to keep the busy professional informed of what's happening in the markets and have a laugh together on the way. Subscribe for Free davidwolf.substack.com

Did you own commodities, gold and row equities in 2026? or just nasty US assets.

@GavinGewecke I agree. That is why I think that this will be a strategic loss for the US, a big one. @DSMMAprivate, Gavin, if indeed this is one of the outcomes, do you think it undermines the dollar long-term?

@jdw100 Hmm I would think that’s unlikely. At most, Iran might ease control or normalize access in exchange for major concessions, but not permanently relinquish that leverage.

Good morning ☕️ a few thoughts on the Iran conflict at the current juncture. If you step back and picture the negotiating table, it is not a clean diplomatic setting but a layered one, part formal talks, part implied pressure, part actions still unfolding in the background. The initial escalation has already set the terms of engagement. Now the participants are sitting across from one another in a less tense phase, but not a settled one. The system is holding in a narrow range where each side remains engaged, still adjusting, and still trying to shape the outcome without pushing things back into outright conflict. The United States is trying to translate that initial pressure into something concrete and visible. It wants an outcome it can point to, a clear rollback in Iran’s nuclear posture, limits around enriched uranium, and some constraint on missile capability, while avoiding getting drawn into a longer, more complicated war. That requires a careful balance: maintaining enough pressure through military posture, sanctions, and implicit escalation risk to keep negotiations alive, but not so much that it forces a broader regional conflict or disrupts energy markets through something like the Strait of Hormuz. The objective is not just strategic, but communicable, something that can be framed as a decisive result without requiring indefinite follow-through. Israel is approaching the same moment with a different standard. It is less focused on whether an agreement can be reached and more concerned with whether the underlying threat is actually reduced in a lasting way. That means not only Iran’s nuclear trajectory, but also the broader network, Hezbollah in Lebanon, militia groups in Iraq, and other forward positions that give Iran reach. From its perspective, anything that leaves those structures intact or allows them to rebuild is incomplete. That creates a tendency to keep acting, targeted strikes, leadership removal, continued pressure on proxy infrastructure, even as talks progress, because the goal is not just pause, but structural change that is difficult to reverse. Iran is operating under constraint in the opposite direction. It is absorbing pressure, but it cannot convert that into visible capitulation without risking internal instability. At the same time, it needs relief, access to capital, easing of sanctions, and stabilization of its currency and domestic economy. So it is negotiating within a narrow corridor: signaling willingness on issues like enrichment levels or oversight mechanisms, while preserving core capabilities and maintaining the principle of sovereignty. It also retains leverage through asymmetric channels, its proxy network and its ability to disrupt shipping flows, without necessarily using them fully. That makes its position cautious, incremental, and highly sensitive to how any agreement is framed. China, while not directly driving the conflict, plays a quiet role in shaping the environment around it. Its interest is in stability of flows, particularly energy, and in avoiding a disorderly escalation that would ripple through global trade. At the same time, it is not aligned with a resolution that significantly expands U.S. influence or locks in a Western-defined regional order. China is more comfortable with a contained, managed situation where volatility is reduced but the balance of power remains fluid. That places it in a position where it quietly supports de-escalation, but not necessarily a decisive settlement. Taken together, this creates a situation where progress is possible but fragile. Each side is working toward an outcome, but from a different definition of what that outcome needs to look like, rollback, restructuring, survival, or stability. The overlap exists, but it is narrow and conditional. From here, the focus is on whether the tension at the negotiating table can stay productive, or whether it gives way in one direction or the other.

@Bruce_Markets A corollary: One's best trades are those that lost money.

An investor should not just be judged both on the quality of returns they produced, but also in the investments that they did not make.

Why is everything everybody says so amusing that it is worthy of a "kkkkkk"?

That moment when Artemis II got closer to the moon and the earth was 238K miles away.

No more stress

Sky full of stars. Following a successful lunar flyby, the Artemis II astronauts captured this breathtaking photo of our galaxy, the Milky Way, on April 7, 2026.

So we get the strait reopened with Iran controlling it and a toll. And Iran gets a much better deal than JCPOA. And it cost them the death of some old men and some destruction of some stuff. Well played. What am I missing?

What I don't get at all is whether Trump has allowed or will allow Iran to keep its enriched uranium and nuclear program. I thought that was Trump's bare minimum for pulling out.

Amazing

@JoseHenri2 The problem is the mark-to-market

I am allocated to gold, but I worry that is has become the new favorite funding currency.

Learn how to navigate the markets when the truth is impossible to find... Read this week's Macro Monitor, by "the wolf of wall street." Subscribe for free. Link in the replies.

@psmoreno They sleep well

@jdw100 Seems like everybody's got a price 🎶 I wonder how they sleep at night 🎶 When the sale comes first and the truth comes second🎶 youtu.be/2V_K_c6vtj0?si…

@cogsciclinton @YouTube But the price of energy would be much higher for US consumers.

@jdw100 @YouTube Even if the war breaks the Gulf as the world's crude supply, wouldn't that result in Europe and Asia buying energy from North America? Is there even a way for the US to lose this war? A win is a win, and a loss is a win.

Smart guy The U.S. 'playing with fire' on Iran, Dr. Brzezinski warned in 2012 youtu.be/UvDQT1Trn1M?si… via @YouTube

39%