Markets don’t stand still — and neither do we. Repricing growth, shifting policy expectations, and AI-driven disruption are reshaping sector leadership. In this environment, clarity matters. Join Candriam CIO Nicolas Forest on April 21 for Candriam’s Market Briefing, as specialists across asset classes join Nicolas to recap what they’ve seen in the markets over the first quarter of the year.

The week ahead is crucial, with many events unfolding simultaneously. Obviously, a first area of focus will continue to be the evolution of the Iran war and any signs of progress at that front.

In a recent Explore webinar, Candriam CIO Nicolas Forest, alongside Chief Economist Florence Pisani, Co-Global Head of Equity Management Johan Van der Biest and Head of Emerging Markets Equities Paulo Salazar, shared their views on the impact of the Strait of Hormuz closure, the general feeling of the markets and explored the trends to be aware of across equities.

Impact investments have kept rising over the past decades, reaching $1.6 trillion USD according to the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) – that is $ 1.6 trillion USD in assets allocated toward solutions supporting the Sustainable Development Goals.

European equities have rebounded since our last Equity Committee meeting on 10 March, thanks to a significant easing of geopolitical tensions, driven by a temporary ceasefire between the US and Iran in early April.

Financial markets have entered a regime where escalation and de-escalation are no longer discrete events, but part of a repeating pattern. The war in Iran has not evolved linearly; it has oscillated, with periods of intensity followed by temporary pauses, each feeding renewed uncertainty rather than resolution.

March was dominated by the Middle East shock, as the escalation of the US-Iran conflict and disruption around the Strait of Hormuz pushed energy prices sharply higher and reignited inflation concerns globally.

We maintain a neutral stance on US duration. Uncertainty around the conflict, the path of oil prices, and the Fed reaction function still argue against taking a strong strategic view on nominal Treasuries.