Trump is about to give a speech, and the US stocks are rising for the first time with two consecutive gains, gold has already increased for four consecutive days, Wall Street is experiencing FOMO.

A speech—so that all of Wall Street dares not miss it.

Local time on April 1, according to Xinhua News Agency, the White House announced that President Trump will deliver a nationwide address at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time that evening (9:00 p.m. Beijing Time on April 2) regarding Iran, with “important updates.” White House press secretary Leavitt made the above remarks on social media, but did not provide any further information.

Market expectations are that he will use the speech to reaffirm that military action will be concluded within two to three weeks. Earlier yesterday, Trump had already sent signals. According to Xinhua, he said the United States could end its military action against Iran in two to three weeks: “We are going to pull out soon,” adding that its only goal is for Iran not to have nuclear weapons—“and that goal has already been achieved.” He also said that even without reaching an agreement with Iran, the U.S. could end the hostilities.

These statements directly lit up the market’s FOMO (fear of missing out) mood.

Overnight, U.S. stocks climbed for two straight sessions. The Nasdaq hit its best two-day performance since May 2025. Meanwhile, gold has risen more than 6% cumulatively this week. In early trading today, it has been up for four straight days, as traders bet that the Federal Reserve may turn to rate cuts due to downside pressure on the economy. At the same time, oil prices fell again in early trading, slipping back under pressure to around $100 per barrel.

But will this be a new TACO? In the April kickoff rally sparked by “ceasefire hopes,” the divergence between real data and market sentiment is becoming extremely dangerous. U.S. macro hard data is still trending lower, but survey-based “soft data” has soared on the “hope” that the war has hit bottom. In the face of highly exaggerated verbal clashes between Trump and the Iranian side, an increasing number of clear-headed traders have begun to question: Is this the dawn of peace, or another “head fake” Trump is using to manipulate the market?

U.S. stocks post a “two-day rally”: nobody wants to miss this run, but the market is still being played by news headlines

U.S. stocks rose for a second consecutive day on April 1. The Nasdaq Composite gained 1.2%, posting its best two-day performance since May 2025; the S&P 500 rose 0.7%.

Gains in Boeing and Caterpillar helped drive the Dow Jones Industrial Average to a three-day win streak. The memory chip sector (GSTMTMEM, +8.2%) led the way, delivering the second-best performance in history for the sector.

U.S. stocks’ Mag 7 is on track to post the best two-day performance in nearly a year, but afterward, its momentum weakened.

What’s driving this rally isn’t just optimistic fundamentals—it’s a collective “don’t dare to miss out” FOMO mindset.

Piper Sandler derivatives trader Tom Keen said: “As long as people smell even a bit of good news, or a hint of progress, everyone will quickly add back to their risk assets.”

“This is a trade of ‘the war is about to end,’” said Rocky Fishman, founder of Asym 500.

This mindset is not hard to trace. After Trump announced a pause in tariffs for “Liberation Day” last year, the Nasdaq surged more than 10% in a single day. Many hedge funds were caught off guard. That scene is still fresh in everyone’s mind, and nobody wants to be left out on the sidelines again.

Market-implied data also confirms this optimism. According to Polymarket data, traders recently gave the probability that the U.S. and Iran will announce a ceasefire by June 30 at about 65%, higher than the roughly 52% seen in late March.

However, some analysis suggests this rally may be a technical “squeezy” rather than genuine position-building driven by fundamentals. Real trading data from Goldman’s Prime Brokerage (PB) business shows: the net buying in the U.S. stock market overnight (1.7 standard deviations above the one-year average) was overwhelmingly driven by short covering—the data shows that the scale of buy-to-cover by shorts reached 4.7 times the scale of selling by longs.

In addition, institutional funds are effectively “frozen.” A Goldman trading desk said that overall trading activity on the day was only 5 (on a 1-to-10 scale). Whether it was long-only funds (LO) or hedge funds (HFs), everyone stayed on the sidelines, and net positions were basically flat for the entire day.

Goldman analyst Chris Hussey also pointed out that today’s rise is largely just the passive closing of short positions (a squeeze), not truly long-position building.

At the open, with optimistic expectations tied to Trump’s speech, the major indexes jumped quickly and hit key technical resistance levels. But as more headlines about Middle East conflict emerged, the early-session squeeze failed to hold, and the gains narrowed rapidly. All three major U.S. stock indexes failed to hold their ground all day; instead, accompanied by reversals in the news flow, they staged three “pump’n’dumps” that surged and then sold off.

Derivatives market “booster”: for every point it rises, it forces out more buy orders

Behind this rebound, the structural forces in the derivatives market also cannot be ignored.

Hedging operations by options market makers noticeably amplified the rally on Tuesday. David Boole, managing director of BayCrest Options Brokerage, said that as the stock price rose, the value of certain options positions on some professional traders’ books changed rapidly, forcing them to buy index futures to hedge.

“Every time it rises by a point, it pulls out more buy orders,” Boole said, “and it looks more like a market driven by momentum, positioning, and technical factors, rather than a long-term fundamental logic.”

According to Goldman data, after the expiration of end-of-quarter options, dealers’ gamma exposure shifted from more than $7 billion net short previously to roughly flat, which means the two-way volatility amplification effect in the market will be somewhat contained.

Gold posts a “four-day rally”: traders bet the Fed will turn to rate cuts

Meanwhile, gold has risen for four straight days. Its cumulative gain this week is now over 6%, the largest one-week increase in nearly 10 weeks.

Spot gold rose about 0.6% in early trading on April 2 to $4,788.13 per ounce, at one point touching above $4,790 during the session.

The logic behind gold’s rise differs slightly from that of the stock market. Christopher Wong, a strategist at Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation, analyzed: “If geopolitical tensions cool down, or concerns about economic growth re-emerge, market expectations for Fed rate cuts may return again. In that scenario, real yields would fall, supporting gold. In fact, the recent price action has already been hinting at this dynamic.”

In short, the market’s logic is: the war ends → downside economic risks rise → the Fed is forced to cut rates → gold benefits. Currently, market expectations for Fed rate changes in 2026 have shifted back toward a dovish stance, returning to the “rate cut” zone……

It is worth noting that gold fell nearly 12% in March, marking the worst single month performance since October 2008. At that time, high oil prices lifted inflation expectations and weighed down rate-cut expectations, causing gold’s safe-haven attribute to fail. Now, as ceasefire expectations heat up, this logic is reversing.

In addition, the U.S. dollar has fallen for a second straight day, providing extra support for gold. Bitcoin touched $69,000 twice during the day, but as U.S. stocks pulled back into the close, Bitcoin gave back its early gains and ultimately ended the day flat.

Oil prices: repeatedly slapped around by “Trump’s talk,” with real and futures markets diverging

Oil price action is even more complex. Over the past 24 hours, the energy market has swung like a startled animal, bouncing between headline reports of “ceasefire statements” and “denials.”

In early trading on April 2, WTI crude oil fell as much as 1.8% to $98.37 per barrel, after dropping 1.2% the previous day. Brent crude futures fell 2.7% on April 1 to $101.16 per barrel. The S&P 500 Energy sector fell 3.9% on the day, the worst single-day performance in a year amid tariff-related turmoil; Exxon Mobil shares fell 5.2%.

But every time oil prices fall, there is a rebound alongside it. Based on data analysis, on April 1 throughout the day, oil prices swung violently in response to news between Trump and Iran:

• At 08:45 local time, Trump posted on Truth Social that Iran had requested a ceasefire; oil prices fell; then Trump threatened that if the Strait is not reopened, he would bomb Iran back to the Stone Age; oil prices rebounded.

• At 10:30 a.m., Iran’s foreign ministry immediately denied it, saying the relevant claims were “false and without basis”; oil prices rebounded to above $100;

• At 13:00 p.m., White House officials said Trump’s speech would restate a timeline for ending the fighting within two to three weeks; oil prices fell again;

• At 13:45 p.m., Israel Broadcasting Authority reported that progress in U.S.-Iran negotiations was not going smoothly; oil prices turned up again, while U.S. stocks fell.

This kind of “news headline-driven” market action reflects deeper disagreement within the market. Goldman analysis says that the biggest divergence in client conversations right now is that macro clients and physical/professional clients have sharply opposite views on oil prices— the former are increasingly inclined to price in a ceasefire, while the latter think that the current futures price is still too low relative to the scale of actual supply disruptions.

In short: the futures market is trading the expectation of a “war ending,” while the physical market is trading the reality that “oil can’t get shipped out.” Macro traders on Wall Street are betting on a ceasefire, but spot traders believe that compared with the scale of real supply disruptions, the current futures price is priced far too low.

The head of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, warned that as oil supply disruptions deepen further this month, some countries may soon face energy rationing. Gas stations from France to Australia have already seen supply shortages.

There’s still a gap between ceasefire expectations and reality: will the market be fooled again?

The market’s optimism is not without concerns.

As a classic proverb rings in the minds of Wall Street traders: “Fool me once, shame on you… fool me… you can’t get fooled again.” (One time you fooled me, shame on you; if you fool me again… it’s absolutely impossible.)

According to CCTV News, Trump recently hinted that U.S. troops may withdraw without reopening the Strait of Hormuz. But media analysis says this scenario was previously considered almost impossible. Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz carried roughly 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments.

The Iranian Parliament this week approved a plan to levy transit fees on past vessels, meaning that some supplies may be able to resume—but it also highlights the risk that Iran may continue to control this shipping lane going forward.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Wednesday that officials from dozens of countries will hold a meeting this week to discuss how to restore the free flow of energy. But he also acknowledged: “I have to be honest with everyone: it won’t be easy.” He added that ceasefire and the reopening of the strait “do not necessarily happen in sync.”

Will Todman, a senior researcher with the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, also pointed directly to Iran’s calculations: “If a ceasefire opens the door to a new round of conflict in the future, Iran is very unlikely to agree. The Iranian regime believes time is on its side—the longer the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz lasts, the greater the pain it causes for the global economy.”

Risk disclosure and disclaimer

        There are risks in the market; invest with caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, and it does not consider any specific investment objectives, financial conditions, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions in this article are consistent with their specific circumstances. Any investment made based on this is at your own risk.