Market Structure & Weekly Movers – Daily Analysis

[Elina Ward]

Wednesday 25 February 2026​

​

Gold Weekly Move Explained: Geopolitical Escalation, Fed Ambiguity, and Institutional Demand Support​

XAUUSD | 16–24 February 2026

Opening Section​

Gold (XAUUSD) once again demonstrated its defensive characteristics during the period from 16 to 24 February 2026. As a macro-sensitive asset, gold reflects shifts in geopolitical risk, monetary expectations, and institutional capital allocation rather than isolated technical signals.

This period captured a transition from early-week weakness to a structured recovery that ultimately produced a significant upside expansion. The move was not random volatility — it was layered, reactive, and macro-driven.

Between its weekly low and period high, gold advanced 8.41%, reinforcing its role as a strategic hedge amid geopolitical and policy uncertainty.

---

Price Action Overview​

Gold began the week trading near 5,035.34 on 16 February before selling pressure intensified on 17 February. The metal fell sharply to a weekly low of 4,842.53, briefly breaking below the psychological $5,000 threshold.

However, the breakdown failed to extend.

By 18 February, gold had rebounded to 5,010.78, signaling stabilization. The recovery continued on 19 February, printing a daily high of 5,022.18, followed by a stronger breakout on 20 February toward 5,106.99.

Momentum accelerated into 23 February, where gold reached a period high of 5,249.77.

From the weekly low of 4,842.53 to the high of 5,249.77, gold gained 8.41%.

Following the peak, price retraced in a controlled manner, dipping to 5,094.06 before stabilizing and closing near 5,143.77 on 24 February.

The structure of the move unfolded in clear stages:

flush → stabilization → breakout → acceleration → orderly pullback.

---

What Drove Gold’s Weekly Move​

1. Escalating U.S.–Iran Geopolitical Tension​

The primary macro catalyst during the week was renewed uncertainty surrounding U.S.–Iran nuclear negotiations.

Diplomatic talks resumed mid-week, but increasingly firm rhetoric from U.S. officials raised concerns over potential escalation. Military positioning in the Middle East added to market unease, particularly given the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz.

Safe-haven flows intensified as geopolitical risk perception increased. The breakout above 5,100 on 20 February aligned closely with the period of heightened headline sensitivity.

Gold’s response was strong but measured, indicating portfolio reallocation rather than panic buying.

---

2. Federal Reserve Policy Ambiguity​

Macroeconomic signals reinforced the move.

Cooling inflation data reduced real yield pressure, weakening the U.S. dollar and improving conditions for gold. Lower real yields reduce the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets.

However, Federal Reserve communications introduced caution regarding the persistence of inflation. The absence of a clear and immediate rate-cut signal created macro ambiguity.

This mixed environment supported gold structurally while preventing disorderly upside acceleration.

---

3. Trade and Tariff Uncertainty​

Late in the period, renewed tariff discussions introduced additional macro risk.

Trade policy uncertainty typically supports defensive positioning. While not the primary driver of the rally, it reinforced gold’s floor above $5,000 and contributed to sustained elevated pricing near 5,200.

---

4. Institutional Demand Structure​

Underlying the rally was continued structural demand.

Central bank diversification and institutional allocation flows supported the rebound from 4,842.53. Although elevated prices softened some consumer demand, investment participation remained firm.

This explains why the early-week breakdown failed to evolve into a sustained bearish move.

---

Why Gold Behaved the Way It Did​

Gold’s behavior during this period reflects institutional repositioning rather than speculative excess.

The sharp drop to 4,842.53 was absorbed quickly. Selling momentum failed to extend, indicating underlying demand.

As geopolitical and macro layers stacked mid-week, the breakout above 5,100 confirmed renewed allocation strength. The expansion to 5,249.77 represented momentum participation.

Importantly, the subsequent pullback to 5,094.06 was orderly. There was no disorderly liquidation or volatility spike. The market consolidated near 5,143.77 after an 8.41% advance — a natural stabilization phase after rapid upside expansion.

The move reflects structural resilience rather than temporary volatility.

---

Takeaway​

Between 16 and 24 February 2026, gold transitioned from early-week weakness to decisive recovery, advancing 8.41% from its weekly low of 4,842.53 to a period high of 5,249.77.

The rally was driven by escalating U.S.–Iran geopolitical tension, Federal Reserve policy ambiguity, trade uncertainty, and continued institutional demand support.

The successful reclamation and defense of the $5,000 level confirmed structural confidence in gold’s defensive role. The controlled pullback after the high suggested digestion rather than exhaustion.

The period ultimately demonstrated gold’s sensitivity to layered macro forces — and its continued position as a strategic hedge amid global uncertainty.

Market Note – Weekend Risk Watch​

As markets head into Friday’s close, attention should remain firmly on developments in the Middle East.

Recent geopolitical tensions have already influenced safe-haven positioning across gold and other macro-sensitive assets. With diplomatic discussions ongoing and military rhetoric elevated, any headline over the weekend could influence sentiment when markets reopen.

Because geopolitical events can unfold outside trading hours, weekend developments may increase the probability of opening gaps or volatility at the start of next week.

Market participants may therefore want to remain attentive to confirmed updates before liquidity returns on Monday.



The chart below illustrates the weekly price movement of XAUUSD on the 1-hour timeframe between 16 and 24 February 2026.

 

[Elina Ward]

Thursday 26 February 2026​

Brent Crude Weekly Move Explained: Military Escalation, Hormuz Risk, Diplomatic Repricing​

Brent Crude | February 16 – February 25, 2026

---

1. Opening Section​

Brent crude serves as the primary global benchmark for seaborne oil pricing, anchoring physical contracts across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. As a macro-sensitive commodity, Brent reflects shifts in geopolitical stability, supply-chain vulnerability, producer behavior, and global demand expectations. Unlike many financial assets, geopolitical risk in oil markets is priced directly into spot and front-month contracts due to the physical immediacy of supply constraints.

During the period from February 16 to February 25, 2026, Brent functioned as a live barometer of geopolitical risk premium expansion. Escalating military deployments in the Gulf region, renewed U.S.–Iran nuclear tensions, and a temporary Strait of Hormuz closure triggered repricing of supply disruption probability.

From a weekly low of $66.26 (February 17) to a period high of $71.96 (February 23), Brent advanced approximately 8.6%, before consolidating and closing at $70.79. The move represented a structurally significant expansion driven primarily by risk repricing rather than physical shortage.

---

2. Price Action Overview​

The week opened under reduced liquidity conditions due to the February 16 Presidents’ Day holiday in the United States. Early price action was muted, with Brent stabilizing before dipping to the weekly low of $66.26 on February 17.

From that low, momentum shifted decisively. On February 18, Brent printed a daily high of $70.10, marking the beginning of a sharp expansion phase. The following session extended gains, with February 19 reaching $71.54, signaling acceleration in risk premium pricing.

Escalation rhetoric intensified on February 20, and Brent recorded a new high of $71.84, reflecting sustained bid pressure. The move culminated on February 23 with a period high of $71.96, completing an 8.6% advance from the February 17 low.

A measured pullback followed. On February 24, Brent registered a daily low of $70.45, followed by $70.19 on February 25, indicating profit-taking and consolidation rather than disorderly liquidation. The period closed at $70.79, maintaining the majority of gains despite diplomatic headlines suggesting renewed talks.

Structurally, the sequence unfolded as:

Flush → Acceleration → Expansion High → Orderly Pullback → Stabilization

The absence of aggressive downside follow-through indicated continued absorption of selling pressure at elevated levels.

---

3. What Drove the Weekly Move​

A. Military Escalation and Asset Deployment​

The deployment of significant U.S. military assets to the Middle East materially altered the market’s risk assessment. The USS Abraham Lincoln remained positioned in the Arabian Sea, while the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group deployed to the region. Additional deployments included F-35s, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, B-2 bombers at Diego Garcia, more than 85 refueling tankers, and approximately 170 cargo aircraft.

Such scale represented one of the largest regional buildups in decades. Oil markets interpreted the deployment as a credible escalation signal, increasing the probability assigned to supply disruption scenarios.

Given that approximately 20 million barrels per day transit the Strait of Hormuz—representing roughly 20% of global supply and 25–30% of seaborne oil—the presence of concentrated military assets directly impacts price formation. The expansion from $66.26 to $71.96 reflected this repricing dynamic.

---

B. Strait of Hormuz Disruption Risk​

On February 19–20, Iran temporarily closed the Strait of Hormuz for naval exercises. While the closure was limited and short-lived, it demonstrated operational capability to interfere with global energy transit.

Oil markets price not only realized supply loss but also disruption probability multiplied by volume at risk. With roughly 70% of OPEC+ spare capacity concentrated in the Gulf region, even partial interference carries systemic implications.

The temporary closure reinforced the legitimacy of the threat, sustaining elevated pricing even after diplomatic engagement resumed.

---

C. Diplomatic Uncertainty and Ultimatum Timeline​

On February 20, President Trump issued a 10–15 day ultimatum regarding nuclear negotiations, introducing a defined timeline into market expectations. The binary nature of the deadline—resolution or escalation—prevented full unwinding of the risk premium.

When renewed talks were announced on February 23, Brent did not collapse but instead stabilized. The limited pullback to $70.45–$70.19 indicated probability reassignment rather than full de-escalation pricing.

The persistence of price above $70 despite projected global oil surplus of 3.8–3.9 million barrels per day for 2026 underscored the dominance of tail-risk pricing over forward surplus estimates.

---

4. Why Brent Behaved the Way It Did​

The structure of the move suggests institutional repositioning rather than speculative excess.

First, the rally unfolded progressively across multiple sessions, with higher highs on February 18, 19, 20, and 23. This stair-step progression reflects sustained accumulation rather than single-session spike behavior.

Second, the pullback phase was orderly. The February 24–25 lows remained well above the February 17 trough, confirming that the market absorbed profit-taking without structural breakdown.

Third, the futures curve remained consistent with near-term tightness perception but not sustained deficit expectations, aligning with surplus projections for 2026. This indicates that the move was primarily geopolitical risk premium injection rather than structural supply rebalancing.

The market effectively recalibrated equilibrium pricing to reflect embedded disruption risk, then consolidated at that higher level as uncertainty persisted.

---

5. Takeaway​

Between February 16 and February 25, 2026, Brent crude advanced from $66.26 to $71.96, a gain of approximately 8.6%, before closing at $70.79. The move unfolded in three phases: initial stabilization in low liquidity conditions, accelerated risk premium expansion amid military escalation and Strait of Hormuz disruption signals, and orderly consolidation as diplomatic channels reopened.

Despite projected global surplus conditions, Brent maintained the majority of its gains. The episode demonstrates that geopolitical risk premium in energy markets can temporarily dominate fundamental balance when high-volume chokepoints are implicated. The ability of Brent to stabilize above $70 after an 8.6% expansion underscores the structural influence of tail-risk repricing during concentrated geopolitical stress.

---

6. Market Note – Weekend Geopolitical Watch​

As markets approach the weekly close, attention remains elevated on developments in the Middle East, particularly surrounding ongoing U.S.–Iran negotiations and regional military positioning. With energy markets highly sensitive to shifts in diplomatic tone or security conditions around key transit routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, headline risk remains a dominant short-term driver.

Weekend developments can introduce gap risk at the next market open, as geopolitical announcements often occur outside regular trading hours. In periods of heightened regional tension, changes in negotiation status, military posture, or maritime activity can alter risk assumptions rapidly.

Market participants should remain aware that energy pricing, broader commodity markets, and risk sentiment may respond quickly to any material updates released before trading resumes.


The chart below highlights Brent crude oil’s price movement and percentage change between 16 and 25 February.