Financially Speaking
Earlier this year I attended a conference for women wealth managers and financial advisors. It’s one I’ve attended for a number of years and I always come away energized and full of ideas to share with Erik, Sean and our team. Perhaps too many ideas, because they have learned to give me a day or so to come down from my “information high” before we discuss what we feel is useful for our clients and our practice.
One topic that is always a key discussion point for us, and at any conference, is how to help clients with retirement beyond the management of their money. We typically work with clients who built successful businesses, were upper-level executives or consultants with families. Busy people both at work and at home. They often talk about how they will have the freedom to do whatever they like when they retire. Sometimes this can be liberating, but sometimes it can be stressful. As a society, we are defined by our work for the better part of our lives. When we no longer have that “work”, we sometimes feel unimportant and that we don’t matter.
Researchers at the MIT Age Lab and other institutions have observed that the keys to a happy retirement are feeling that “you matter”, that you have a sense of purpose and connection. These same researchers coined the phrase “your mattering factor.” So how exactly do you measure your mattering factor and what steps can you take to boost it?
In this quarter’s newsletter you will find: Sean’s article on impacts of the Iran conflict beyond energy, Erik’s article on the Artemis mission, an article on Retiring the Old Age Story, our quarterly Economic Update and information on upcoming events.
Beyond Energy: The Less Obvious Economic Fault Lines of the Iran War
Public debate around the current conflict involving Iran has revolved around oil prices and tanker attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. Yet the more consequential shocks for the global economy may be unfolding in places most people never think about: the plastics in medical devices, the fertilizer underpinning food supplies, the helium cooling MRI scanners and chip fabs—and the risk and capital systems that quietly finance them.
Medical Plastics and the Cost of Care
Modern healthcare is built on petrochemical-derived plastics: polypropylene and polyethylene for syringes and IV components, PVC for tubing and blood bags, and specialized polymers for diagnostic cartridges and personal protective equipment. As the conflict injects volatility into Gulf petrochemical feedstocks and disrupts shipping through Hormuz, resin prices have jumped and supply chains for medical-grade plastics have become more fragile.
Industry bodies in emerging markets report that input costs for plastic-intensive medical devices are up as much as 50%, forcing manufacturers of syringes, gloves and disposables to raise prices just to preserve razor-thin margins. For hospitals and health systems, especially outside the OECD, this shows up as higher procurement costs and more frequent stockouts of basic consumables that rarely make headlines but are essential for safe care.
Fertilizer, food, and the politics of scarcity
The Gulf is also a powerhouse in global fertilizer markets, exporting nitrogen and phosphate products such as urea and ammonia that are critical for cereals and rice. With roughly one third of seaborne fertilizer trade now exposed to conflict-related disruptions, delayed or rerouted shipments have pushed prices higher and made supply less reliable.
In fertilizer‑dependent economies, from Ethiopia (which sources over 90% of its nitrogen fertilizer via stressed trade corridors) to parts of South Asia, farmers are responding by cutting application rates, delaying purchases, or switching crops. These micro‑decisions compound into macro‑effects: lower yields, tighter food balances and rising consumer prices that can feed directly into political instability and migration pressures far from the Gulf itself.
Helium: a small market with outsized consequences
Helium, a niche byproduct of natural gas processing, is another weak link exposed by the war. Qatar alone typically supplies around one‑third of the world’s helium, much of it shipped as liquid cargo alongside LNG. Attacks on gas infrastructure and elevated risks in Hormuz have already interrupted part of this flow, with analysts warning that up to 30% of global helium supply could be periodically constrained if disruptions persist.
Helium prices have doubled in some contracts, with ripple effects into two highly strategic sectors: medicine and semiconductors. MRI scanners require large quantities of liquid helium to keep superconducting magnets at cryogenic temperatures. While major hospitals can often pay almost any price, smaller clinics and emerging‑market systems cannot, raising the risk of delayed installations, higher downtime, and a widening gap in diagnostic access. Chipmakers in countries such as South Korea, which import the majority of their helium from Qatar, face rising costs and potential bottlenecks at exactly the moment demand for AI‑grade semiconductors is surging.
The Quiet Shock: Risk Management and Insurance
All of these sectoral tremors are mediated by an often‑overlooked layer: risk management and insurance. The conflict has triggered dramatic increases in war‑risk premiums for vessels and cargo transiting the Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean, with some marine war rates reportedly rising by over 1,000% and certain insurers withdrawing cover altogether for high‑risk zones. For ships carrying plastics feedstocks, fertilizer, or helium, the insurance bill for a single voyage can now rival pre‑war freight and bunker costs combined.
At the portfolio level, global insurers and reinsurers are less concerned about a single large loss than about accumulation risk—multiple ships, terminals, or energy assets hit by a small number of events. Specialty lines such as marine, energy, political violence, terrorism and trade credit are most exposed, and large reinsurers are already warning of heightened earnings volatility if the conflict is prolonged.
This has two knock‑on effects many won’t have considered:
- Companies in downstream sectors (hospitals importing medical devices, farm co‑ops importing fertilizer, semiconductor firms dependent on helium shipments) are being pushed to rethink their risk transfer strategy—buying more political‑risk, contingent business interruption, and cyber coverage, or in some cases being priced out of coverage entirely.
- Higher insurance and risk capital costs make it more expensive to hold inventories and maintain just‑in‑case supply chains for critical inputs, especially for small and mid‑sized buyers with weaker balance sheets.
Over time, this can drive consolidation in sectors like medical supply distribution and agricultural inputs, as smaller firms struggle to fund higher working capital and risk‑management overheads.
Gulf Capital Reconsidered
The war is also reaching into global capital markets through the investment behavior of Gulf states themselves. Sovereign wealth funds and state‑linked investors in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have emerged over the past decade as major sources of capital for Western infrastructure, tech, sports, and real estate. According to the Financial Times, revenue pressures from disrupted energy flows, surging defense spending, slower tourism and rising domestic support costs are now prompting some governments to review their outbound investment plans.
In practical terms, that could mean:
- Delayed or scaled‑back commitments to overseas projects, including infrastructure, venture capital, and green‑transition investments that had been counting on Gulf capital.
- Potential asset sales or reduced sponsorship in high‑visibility areas like European sports and entertainment, if domestic fiscal priorities tighten.
For sectors already strained by higher input and insurance costs—such as med‑tech manufacturers, ag‑tech firms and chipmakers—any pullback or re‑prioritization of Gulf capital adds a financial‑market dimension to the supply‑chain shock. Projects designed around assumptions of cheap Gulf funding and stable Gulf shipping could find both planks wobbling at once.
the second-order macro picture
Taken together, the interplay of commodity disruption, risk repricing and shifting capital flows creates a subtler, more pervasive economic shock than a simple oil‑price spike. Plastics shortages raise the cost of care and delay innovation at the clinical frontier. Fertilizer volatility pushes up food prices, squeezes small farmers and heightens political risk in fragile states. Helium scarcity nudges hospitals and semiconductor fabs into more conservative investment and maintenance strategies.
Meanwhile, insurers and reinsurers are charging more to underwrite exactly the cross‑border flows that could smooth these disruptions, and Gulf investors who once helped recycle energy surpluses into global growth are reassessing how much capital they can afford to send abroad. The result is not just inflation, but a world in which the financial plumbing that supports globalization becomes more risk‑averse, more regional, and more expensive.
For those used to thinking about the Iran war in terms of gasoline prices, these are the less visible—but potentially more durable—fault lines: in IV tubing and fertilizer bags, in MRI cooling systems and chip plants, in insurance contracts and sovereign wealth fund spreadsheets. How policymakers, firms and investors respond to these second‑order shocks may do more to shape the post‑war economic landscape than the next move in the Brent crude curve.
Artemis: We’re Going Back to the Moon
There’s a lot going on around the world right now. But, while the headlines are keeping us busy with economic fears, images of war, and geopolitical woes, there is something pretty cool going on.
While my pieces for our newsletter are often geared towards more technical aspects of finance or economics, I figured it may be worth going back to my roots to talk about something that is interesting and historically significant outside of the world of economics and finance.
For those who don’t know, despite working in finance for well over a decade now, I have a degree in Physics and Math from the University of Pittsburgh. As I’ve watched Artemis develop and recently launch Artemis II, I’ve been captivated by the goals and problem solving associated with the mission. Artemis is not a rerun of the Apollo program. This is something entirely new with the ultimate goal of not just going to the Moon, but establishing a permanent presence there and using it as a springboard for further space exploration.
This Isn’t Apollo 2.0
One of the easiest ways to think about Artemis is this: Apollo was a mission, Artemis is a system.Apollo had a clear objective—beat the Soviets to the Moon—and a clear structure: launch, land, come home. Artemis is trying to build something that lasts. Not just one mission, but repeatable ones. Not just footprints, but infrastructure. That means everything gets more complicated. Instead of one rocket doing everything, Artemis uses multiple systems working together over time. It’s less of a straight line and more of a network. That’s a big shift—and it’s really where the opportunity (and the risk) starts to show up.Artemis II: Not Flashy, But Really Important
Right now, the focus is on Artemis II—the first mission in this program that will actually have people on board. While the craft is manned, interestingly enough it’s not going to be landing anywhere. It’s a roughly 10-day mission where astronauts fly around the Moon and come back. No touchdown, no moonwalk, no dramatic planting of flags. While this may sound like a step back, it’s actually a massive step forward.
This is where all the systems get tested with humans involved—life support, navigation, communication, and just as importantly, how people function in deep space after being limited to low Earth orbit for decades.
There’s also a really interesting piece of physics baked into the mission: something called a “free-return trajectory.” In simple terms, the spacecraft is put on a path where the Moon’s gravity naturally swings it back toward Earth—even if something goes wrong. The concept of a free-return trajectory is actually a concept I remember working through back at the University of Pittsburgh. At the time, it felt like an elegant math problem. Now it’s the difference between a safe return and a very bad situation.
That’s kind of the theme with Artemis—taking things that used to live in textbooks and turning them into mission-critical realities.
The Setup Is Way More Complicated This Time
If Apollo was simple (relatively speaking), Artemis is anything but.The program relies on a few major components:- The Space Launch System (SLS) rocket
- The Orion spacecraft that carries astronauts
- A lunar lander being developed commercially—currently led by SpaceX
Why the Moon Again?
This is probably the most common question—and a fair one. Didn’t we already figure the Moon out? Well no, not really.The biggest reason we’re going back is the lunar south pole. There’s strong evidence that water ice exists in permanently shadowed craters there, which changes everything for the prospect of setting up a lunar base. Water means you don’t have to bring everything with you. It can be used for drinking, oxygen, and even converted into rocket fuel. Basically, it makes staying there long term more feasible.Beyond the prospect of a Moon base, there is also a lot of opportunity for further understanding of our solar system by further exploration. The Moon is basically a time capsule. It doesn’t have weather, it doesn’t have tectonic activity, what’s there has been sitting there for billions of years. So if you want to understand the early solar system—or even how Earth formed—the Moon is one of the best places to look.There’s More Going On Here Than Just Science
Like most big space programs, Artemis isn’t just about exploration, there’s a strategic element to it. The U.S. is not the only country interested in the Moon, and there’s a real push to establish presence, partnerships, and infrastructure before someone else does. It’s not quite the Cold War space race—but it’s not completely different either.The big shift is that this time, it’s not just government vs. government. Private companies are deeply involved, and international collaboration is a core part of the program. That makes Artemis more dynamic—but also more complicated to manage.For all the ambition behind Artemis, there are some very real hurdles.- Complexity: There are a lot of moving pieces here, and many of them haven’t been tested together before. That’s always where risk shows up.
- Cost: This isn’t cheap. We’re talking tens of billions of dollars, and that’s before you even get to the idea of building something sustainable on the Moon.
- Timing: Delays have already pushed things back, including the first landing. The longer timelines stretch, the harder it is to maintain momentum and support.
- Reliance on commercial partners: Companies like SpaceX bring speed and innovation, but they also add another layer of dependency. NASA isn’t controlling every piece of the mission the way it did during Apollo.
So What Actually Makes Artemis Important?
- It’s not just getting back to the Moon.
- It’s proving that we can operate there consistently. That we can build something. That we can use one destination to reach the next.
- Apollo answered the question: Can we do this at all? Artemis is trying to answer: Can we do this in a way that lasts? That’s a much harder problem—and a much more important one.
Reframing the retirement story
Today’s retirement is so much more than rest and relaxation. Thanks to the baby boomers, who have changed everything about the way we live, thoughts about aging have changed dramatically. Retirees are living longer, healthier lives than any prior generation, setting the stage for an entire new phase of life.
An ongoing study at the MIT AgeLab suggests that we should think of life in 8000 Day Parts:
- Learning (1st 8000 days): birth through college
- Growing (2nd 8000 days); beginning of professional career, marriage, children
- Maturing (3rd 8000 days): prime career years, grandchildren, retire from job
- Exploring (4th 8000 days): Travel, golf, grandchildren, ?????
The first three stages of life have clear benchmarks and stories to guide us through the decades. The Exploring or retirement phase is much more ambiguous and less clearly defined.
Instead of planning for ‘retirement’ as a single state, it may be beneficial to reframe the conversation to reflect a four-phased concept of retirement. Each is characterized by the tasks and issues individuals are most likely to be managing. The four retirement phases enable a clear vision to plan and to anticipate what is likely to come.
- The Honeymoon Phase
- The Big Decision Phase
- The Navigating Longevity Phase
- The Solo Journey Phase
The four retirement phases will be different for each individual and can change quickly due to multiple factors including health status, marital status and other changes. This can create complexities for a couple when one spouse is in a different phase than their partner.
Retirement can be big and complex and overwhelming—but it’s not the end. It’s not what stereotypes would have us think. In everyone’s retirement, they will face these phases, but there is no formula for when or how the timeline will unfold. Effectively preparing can reduce the stress of uncertainty and boost prolonged independence and control in the lives we’ll lead tomorrow.
Market Commentary: Q1 2026
Market highlights
- Stocks declined as ongoing hostilities in the Middle East weighed on investors.
- Fixed income investors faced rising interest rates and inflation concerns.
- High energy prices could serve as a headwind for future economic growth.
markets fall to end quarter
Markets fell in March, driven by rising geopolitical uncertainty due to the ongoing war in Iran. The S&P 500 fell 4.98 percent in March, which led to a 4.33 percent decline for the quarter. The story was similar for the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which dropped 5.20 percent in March and 3.19 percent for the quarter. Technology stocks were hit especially hard during the quarter, as rising concerns about the disruptive nature of AI weighed on technology companies to start the year. The Nasdaq Composite fell 4.68 percent in March and 6.96 percent for the quarter.These disappointing returns came despite improving fundamentals. Fourth-quarter earnings season results were impressive. As of March 20, with 100 percent of companies having reported actual earnings, the average earnings growth rate for the S&P 500 was 13.2 percent. This is well above analyst estimates for an 8.4 percent growth rate at the start of earnings season.While fundamental factors were supportive in March, technical factors were challenging. All three major U.S. indices ended the month below their respective 200-day moving averages. This marks the first time that all three indices have finished a month below trend since April of last year, when we were contending with the fallout from the Liberation Day tariff announcements.International stocks underperformed in March, with the MSCI EAFE Index down 10.29 percent for the month while the MSCI Emerging Markets Index lost 13.03 percent.Rising Rates Create Headwinds
Even bonds were down in March, due to rising interest rates and inflation concerns. The 10-year Treasury yield rose from 3.97 percent at the end of February to 4.30 percent by the end of March. Short-term rates also rose notably for the month and quarter. The Bloomberg Aggregate Bond Index lost 1.76 percent in March and 0.05 percent for the quarter. The Bloomberg U.S. Corporate High Yield Index fell 1.18 percent for the month and 0.50 percent in the quarter.The rising interest rate environment in March was primarily driven by the ongoing war in Iran and concerns about the impact of hostilities on global trade and inflation. Energy prices rose notably in March and could remain high for the foreseeable future, which in turn could lead to further inflationary pressure. Short-term interest rates rose during the month as traders pared back expectations for interest rate cuts from the Fed.War With Iran Takes Center Stage
The continued war in Iran was the primary news story throughout the month, and rapidly developing headlines grabbed investor attention and led to choppy returns. While the initial reaction to the strikes at the end of February was muted, markets swung throughout March on war-related headlines and updates.Energy prices remained high and volatile throughout March, with rising crude oil prices in the spotlight. As seen in Figure 1, domestic oil prices rose to over $100 a barrel toward the end of the month, which is the highest we’ve seen since 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If higher energy prices persist, this would likely serve as a headwind for future economic growth and lead to rising inflationary pressure.Rising energy prices have already started to have an impact on other areas of the economy. Consumer sentiment fell to a three-month low in March due in part to rising short-term inflation expectations. The survey showed that consumers expect prices to rise by 3.8 percent over the next year, up from 3.4 percent in February. Gas prices were up by roughly $1 on average during the month, and pain at the pump could start to negatively impact discretionary consumer spending in the months ahead.Shifting Risks
As March was a month of shifting risks for investors, which led to rising uncertainty and market volatility. Looking forward, geopolitical risks are expected to remain front and center; however, we may see additional risks to markets materialize as well.Domestically, we continue to face numerous political risks, as shown by the continued partial government shutdown and the TSA funding impasse. Political uncertainty is expected to ramp up further as we approach the midterm elections in November.The fundamentals, however, remain relatively solid for now. Companies have shown impressive resilience over the past few years, and continued earnings growth is expected throughout 2026. While headlines can impact markets in the short term, over the long run, fundamentals ultimately drive performance. As long as companies continue to grow, further market appreciation is the most likely path forward.
Market Commentary Disclosure:
All information according to Bloomberg, unless stated otherwise.
Certain sections of this commentary contain forward-looking statements based on our reasonable expectations, estimates, projections, and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks and uncertainties, which are difficult to predict. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Diversification does not assure a profit or protect against loss in declining markets. All indices are unmanaged and investors cannot invest directly into an index. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted average of 30 actively traded blue-chip stocks. The S&P 500 Index is a broad-based measurement of changes in stock market conditions based on the average performance of 500 widely held common stocks. The Nasdaq Composite Index measures the performance of all issues listed in the Nasdaq Stock Market, except for rights, warrants, units, and convertible debentures. The MSCI EAFE Index is a float-adjusted market capitalization index designed to measure developed market equity performance, excluding the U.S. and Canada. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index is a market capitalization-weighted index composed of companies representative of the market structure of 26 emerging market countries in Europe, Latin America, and the Pacific Basin. It excludes closed markets and those shares in otherwise free markets that are not purchasable by foreigners. The Bloomberg Aggregate Bond Index is an unmanaged market value-weighted index representing securities that are SEC-registered, taxable, and dollar-denominated. It covers the U.S. investment-grade fixed-rate bond market, with index components for a combination of the Bloomberg government and corporate securities, mortgage-backed pass-through securities, and asset-backed securities. The Bloomberg U.S. Corporate High Yield Index covers the USD-denominated, noninvestment-grade, fixed-rate, taxable corporate bond market. Securities are classified as high yield if the middle rating of Moody’s, Fitch, and S&P is Ba1/BB+/BB+ or below. One basis point (bp) is equal to 1/100th of 1 percent, or 0.01 percent.
Authored by the Commonwealth Investment Research Team.
Commonwealth Financial Network®, Member FINRA/SIPC
Advisory services offered through Moore Wealth®, a Registered Investment Adviser. Moore Wealth is located at 50 Carroll Creek Way, Suite 335, Frederick MD 21701. They can be reached at 301-631-1207.