In short: The energy leg of the holy trinity. It usually worked when the other two didn't, but now all three are working at the same time. The backdrop is a $200-product-oil world: "we consume products, not oil."
Energy is the second leg of his holy trinity. The backdrop is extreme: crude is above $100 on futures, but refined products like diesel and jet fuel are priced as if oil were about $200, because "we consume products, not oil." Energy producers benefit, while that same shock is part of why he is bearish on the broad stock market.
47:36So gold, commodities, crypto. And then at the sector level, I go back to a portfolio we launched about four years ago, which was this holy trinity idea: healthcare, energy, financials. It's done superbly since we launched it, and this summer I'm proud to announce that these are the top three sectors.
In short: Renick: options traders keep fading big oil moves. XLE volume 70% above usual, more than twice as many puts as calls, nine of the top 10 contracts puts; heavy buying of the 57-strike puts a month out ("needs XLE to drop 12% to pay off"), with some same-day 65-strike call buying — "the activity does lean bearish long term." The committee's own energy view (Lebenthal) is bullish, hence Neutral net.
In short: The third benchmark — "or even XLE, the large cap, the largest, which is mostly just Exxon and Chevron." Its 11-year record is the contrast he draws: "even the large cap ETF I think is up 20% or something since we launched."
2:18And then also to try to get the exposure to oil versus gas, upstream versus midstream etc., to try to outperform versus ETFs, whether it's XOP, the large cap oil and gas producer ETF here in the US, or PSE, the small cap producer ETF, or even XLE, the large cap, the largest, which is mostly just Exxon and Chevron.
In short: The quiet half of the options read. Renick: volume in the USO ETF is 50% above its 30-day average, "but in XLE it's just average," with a two-way trade in both — which is what makes his segment "mixed at best" on a day when crude and energy equities are both up and the sector ETFs are at highs. Terranova's read is the same in different words: "I could see that there would be some hedging against oil prices at $93-94.00. So I have no problem with that."
In short: Adami's expression of his standing structural-energy thesis, and he is explicit that it is not a crude call: "the world has now come to realize that this is in our own national security… the energy market is absolutely structurally changed. Doesn't mean that crude oil is going to 100, doesn't mean it's going to 60, but what it does mean is the companies, the publicly traded companies that service the sector are absolutely in play. And you've seen that, today notwithstanding… over the course of the last few months. XLE basically a new all-time high earlier this week." He closes the segment with the rule: "it has nothing to do with the price of crude oil as much as people want to make it that linear."
XLE is a basket of the largest US energy companies — mostly the big oil and gas producers plus the refiners and pipelines. Buying it is the simplest way to own "the energy sector" without picking a company.
Guy Adami's argument for owning it deliberately refuses the usual reason. Most people buy energy stocks as a bet on the oil price: crude up, stocks up. He says that link is the wrong model right now. What changed, in his telling, is that governments have decided energy supply is a national security question rather than only an economic one, and that decision produces spending — on production, processing, refining and infrastructure — regardless of what a barrel trades at in any given month.
The practical consequence is his line "it has nothing to do with the price of crude oil": the thesis is not invalidated by crude falling to $60 and is not confirmed by crude reaching $100. What would invalidate it is the spending stopping. XLE at a new all-time high while crude sits well below its spring level is the evidence he offers that the market has already started separating the two.
17:28And you've seen that, today notwithstanding, you've seen that over the course of the last few months. XLE basically a new all-time high earlier this week. OIH is nowhere near its all-time high, but we're approaching the levels that we saw earlier this spring when crude was north of 100. So, and we've talked about the refiners till we're blue in the face.
In short: "By far the best performing sector this year" and about double the tech sector's return — but people barely notice because energy is only ~3.5% of the S&P, too small to move the index. Not on Schwab's favorable list.
XLE holds the S&P 500's oil and gas companies. Sonders' point about it is a statistic, not a recommendation — energy is "by far the best performing sector this year," roughly double the return of the tech sector, and almost nobody has noticed.
The reason nobody noticed is arithmetic: energy is only about 3.5% of the index by market value, so even a spectacular year barely nudges the S&P. It is a neat illustration of her whole thesis — the interesting action is happening beneath a headline index that looks calm. Note that energy is not on Schwab's favorable list; she is reporting the rotation, not endorsing it.
38:19So, well, by far the best performing sector this year is the energy sector. People are generally not that aware of it because it's such a small representation in the S&P 500. though its stellar performance doesn't prevent the S&P at times from chopping around because it only represents about 3.5% of the index but about double the performance of the tech sector and then you have the laggards particularly more recently as I mentioned which are those more interest sensitive segments like utilities like real
In short: Energy hit a record high — second-best sector week to date and the top sector this year, with WTI coming off its 10th positive day in the last 11. Jonathan Krinsky says the group is "running on fumes" and wouldn't chase; Brown answers with breadth rather than opinion: "the sector is up 7% on the month… only 30% of XLE names are at 52-week highs this week. That's not an overbought sector. There's still a lot of room in the individual names." (XLE is +45% year to date and Exxon is ~30% of the index.) His concession to Krinsky is about timing only: "if you're not in the trade and you want to heed Krinsky on the timing, wait for a negative crude oil day or a positive tweet about Iran and buy that dip — but I don't think you want to walk away."
Energy is at a record high and is the best sector of the year, which naturally raises the question of whether it is exhausted. The technical strategist Jonathan Krinsky says it is "running on fumes" and would not buy here.
Josh Brown's rebuttal is a measurement rather than an opinion: only 30% of the stocks inside this energy ETF are at 52-week highs. In a genuinely overheated sector, that figure would be far higher — most names would be at highs simultaneously. So the sector's record is being set by part of the group while the rest still has room.
He also points out that Exxon alone is about 30% of this fund, which distorts what the index tells you about the underlying companies — his preferred read is the E&P-only fund (IEO). His practical advice: if you are not in the trade, you can wait for a weak oil day to buy the dip, but do not walk away from the sector.
In short: Energy hit a record high, with the XLE going for its eighth straight positive day. Terranova's point is that this is not just crude: "this is refined products — diesel — what is known on NYMEX as the 3-2-1 crack, basically crude oil to gasoline to diesel. It's at an all-time high." The supply-side driver: "you've had significant damage to Russian refineries as a result of the Ukrainians being very tactical and targeting those refineries." Talkington, who has "been talking energy for the past six years" and calls it a staple of her portfolio, gives the flat-line warning: "XLE was flat in 2025, so you had to be there already to enjoy the plus-40% returns unless you tactically rotated into it." Her fundamentals: E&P companies "really aren't drilling that much since this war started," the SPR is at an all-time low and "we're going to have to fill that sometime." Her conclusion: "these stocks have a little bit for everyone — growth, dividends, extra distributions… stay long, because we've got to continue to drill."
XLE is the fund that holds the big US energy companies; it hit a record high and is on its eighth straight up day. The important correction Terranova makes is that this rally is not really about the price of crude oil — it is about refining.
The measure he cites, the "3-2-1 crack," is the profit margin a refinery earns turning three barrels of crude into two of gasoline and one of diesel. It is at an all-time high, partly because Ukrainian strikes have damaged Russian refineries, removing refining capacity from the world (and hitting Europe in particular). So the money is being made in the middle of the chain, not at the wellhead.
Bryn Talkington's structural case for staying long: producers have not been drilling much since the war began, and the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve — the government's emergency oil stockpile — is at a record low and will have to be refilled at some point, which is future demand. Her practical warning is that the sector went nowhere in 2025, so you had to already own it to collect this year's 40%-plus. "Stay long, because we've got to continue to drill."
In short: Structurally bullish, tactically extended — buy the dip, don't chase the breakout. The bullish half is stated as corroboration of the long-run case: "a further confirmation of the long-term uptrend is the extremely bullish nature of the breakout to an all-time high by the leading energy producer ETF, XLE, as we have previously noted." The honest half follows in the same breath: "however, again to be fair, it is currently quite extended on a near-term basis, also indicating a correction might be close at hand." That near-term caution is the same one the futures curve is flagging — WTI backwardation "right around $10," the level at which "the oil market corrected, at least to a degree" — and it is sized deliberately small: "our caution level is of a modest nature based on the exceptionally supportive fundamental set-up. In other words, don't be surprised if oil dips a bit but, if it does, prepare to be on the buy side." The house stance behind it is unchanged and stated up front: "a decidedly pro-energy outlook — particularly with oil, natural gas, uranium and, reluctantly, coal" in a "long-disdained sector." No price target, no rating change, no portfolio action attached — a timing flag on an existing long-term positive.
XLE is a fund that owns the big American energy companies — the oil and gas producers and refiners in the S&P 500, with Exxon and Chevron the largest pieces. Buying it is the simplest way to own the sector rather than picking a single driller.
This note is not a new recommendation. Haymaker is already bullish on energy — "oil, natural gas, uranium and, reluctantly, coal" — and says so openly at the start, precisely because it is about to publish a piece of evidence that cuts the other way. Hay's worry is confirmation bias: if you only ever print the data that supports what you already own, you will be the last to know when it turns.
The evidence is in the oil futures market. Oil trades not just at today's price but at agreed prices for delivery months and years ahead. Normally the far-out price is a bit higher than today's, because someone has to pay to store the barrels. When it is lower instead — when buyers will pay more for a barrel today than for one a year from now — that is called backwardation, and it means the market is short of physical oil right now. It used to be unusual; for several years it has been the normal state of affairs, so simply noticing it tells you nothing any more.
What still tells you something is how big the gap is. Hay's charts show that whenever the premium for oil-today over oil-a-year-out has stretched to about $10 a barrel, oil has soon fallen back, at least somewhat. The two most extreme readings — over $30 during Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and again in March during the opening of the Iran war — were both followed by what he calls a "cliff dive" in the price. The gap is roughly $10 right now, which is why he expects a pull-back.
He also explains why this particular gauge is worth trusting: the people trading these contracts are not only speculators. Airlines and other big fuel users hedge their costs in exactly this market, so the price they are willing to pay for near-term barrels is a real-world reading on how tight supply feels, not just a bet.
Now the important part: none of this makes him a seller. The underlying supply-and-demand picture is, in his words, "exceptionally supportive," so the caution is deliberately "of a modest nature." The instruction is the opposite of what a bearish signal usually produces — "don't be surprised if oil dips a bit but, if it does, prepare to be on the buy side." A short-term signal changes when you buy, not whether you want to own the thing.
XLE fits the same shape. It has just broken out to an all-time high, which Hay reads as confirmation that the long-term uptrend in energy is intact — a fund making new highs after years of being ignored is a sign that money is finally arriving in the sector. But a chart that has run hard is also, by definition, stretched, and he says so: XLE is "quite extended on a near-term basis," so "a correction might be close at hand." Two separate things are pointing at the same short-term risk — the futures curve and the price chart — which is why he flags it rather than ignoring it. The stance stays Positive: buy the dip if you get one, don't chase the breakout.
In short: Renick's options read, with the group vying with tech for best sector year to date: more puts than calls by volume this morning (11,000 puts vs under 8,000 calls) "but we're also seeing a lot of put selling as well, meaning traders don't think the group will fall far." Two big bullish prints: ~$175,000 on a stock-replacement trade buying deep in-the-money 35-strike calls expiring tomorrow, and $150,000 of 60-strike mid-September calls — a bet on a 6% rally. On the bearish side, heavy volume in the 55-strike mid-September put, which needs XLE to fall at least 5% over five weeks. Genuinely two-sided.
In short: Where the upside still is: XLE +33% YTD vs the NASDAQ's ~8%, energy tied with technology for the highest five-year returns of any sector — and it's "3% of the S&P, it's peanuts… incredibly neglected." Energy equities are "a more realistic way for almost all of your listeners to play" the oil shortage than the commodity.
XLE is a single fund that holds the large US energy companies, so buying it is a one-click way to own the sector. Hay offers it as the sensible way for ordinary investors to play the oil shortage instead of trading futures contracts, which are borrowed-money bets that can be brutally volatile.
Two facts do the arguing. First, energy has quietly matched technology for the best five-year returns of any sector — almost nobody knows this. Second, it is up about 33% this year while the tech-heavy NASDAQ is up single digits, and it was already rising before the war started. Yet energy is still only about 3% of the S&P 500: "it's peanuts… incredibly neglected."
In other words, a sector that has quietly won for five years is still owned by almost nobody — which is exactly the kind of gap he hunts for.
19:57And the NASDAQ's up 8 n something like that. I don't think most people realize that. And actually energy was rising before the war broke out. So, but it's 3% of the S&P. It's peanuts. — I know. — Well, it continues to be incredibly neglected. Could we maybe look at some of the I just want to go through the charts here real quick. — Yeah, absolutely. So, I'll pull up here.
In short: Energy stocks "have also perked up," the leading ETF XLE rising 7½% thus far this month — but "surprisingly… less than the move in oil," when "typically the shares of oil producers move more than the price of crude." Hay reads the lag as "continuing disbelief about how dire the supply shortage truly is, creating an opportunity to add to names in this sector."
XLE is the big, liquid basket of large US energy stocks (Exxon, Chevron, the majors and services) — the simplest one-click way to own "the energy sector." Hay's point: oil itself has jumped 17% this month, but XLE is up only about 7.5% — roughly half. Normally the shares of oil companies move more than the price of crude, not less, because their profits are highly geared to the oil price. When the stocks lag the commodity like this, it usually means investors don't believe the oil-price move will last. Hay thinks that skepticism is exactly the opportunity: the physical evidence (fast-draining inventories, a real supply shortage) says the move is real, so an energy basket that hasn't caught up yet is a place to add.
In short: "Haymaker favorite" and the named example of the rotation playbook — a sector that has pulled back after achieving a clear upside range expansion but remains in a long-term uptrend. The ETF of leading energy enterprises; the kind of name to be "searching for" if the breadth signals are correct.
XLE holds the big U.S. energy companies (the major oil and gas names) and is a long-standing "Haymaker favorite." Hay uses it as the textbook example of what to buy if this is a rotation: a sector that had a strong run (a "clear upside range expansion"), then pulled back — but whose long-term uptrend is still intact. In other words, a healthy dip in a still-rising group, rather than a broken one. If breadth is confirming a rotation, these pulled-back-but-still-uptrending sectors are where he'd hunt, and energy is the one he names.
In short: Energy is bizarrely ignored — "hardly up" since the Feb-27 war start despite "the most severe energy crisis we've ever had"; he sees a great opportunity.
XLE is an ETF — a single fund you can buy that holds a basket of the big US energy stocks, so it moves with the whole sector. Hay's point: despite what he calls the worst energy crisis ever (a huge chunk of the world's oil stuck behind the closed Strait of Hormuz), this fund has barely moved since the war started in late February. The market is acting as if nothing is happening.
To him that disconnect is the opportunity: a sector priced for calm while the supply backdrop is the most alarming in his career. He sums up the trade as "if you want to play the tech boom, do it with energy" — because the data centers powering AI can't run without it.
8:30Here's the XLE, the leading energy ETF since the war started back on February 27th. It's up a little bit, hardly at all. It ran up decently to begin with, but it's given most of that back. So, there isn't, you know, a sense of of unease, at least, or at least bullishness on energy. And I think that's just really bizarre given the fact that this is the most severe energy crisis we've ever had.
In short: Sector context — energy is "the strongest sector in the market right now"; the XLE has hit 15 record intraday highs in 2026 and broke out of a multi-decade range in January. EQT, the largest pure-play gas producer in the index, has the most leverage to continued sector outperformance.
In short: All its stocks combined are only ~$2T (energy ~3% of the S&P) — could head to 10–15% like 1968–81. Under-owned.
XLE is the main fund tracking the big U.S. energy companies. All its holdings combined are worth only about $2 trillion, and energy is just ~3% of the entire S&P 500.
His argument is that energy is badly under-owned. Back in 1968–81, energy, materials and industrials made up around half the index; he thinks energy alone could climb from ~3% back toward 10–15%. A move that large, into such a small sector, would mean big gains.
6:23Because right now the XLE ETF, all the stocks combined are only worth about two trillion bucks. And then if you look at the FCG ETF, the OIH, and the XOP — those are the four big energy ETFs. It's maybe three trillion dollars in all of the energy stocks combined, whereas the NASDAQ 100 is about 31 trillion. So we're in the early stages of this multi-generational bull market for energy equities.
In short: Turned bullish at the Venezuela "liberation" bearish rush — oil can't go much lower without killing US energy. Energy is "one of the few places that you can hide in because no one owns it"; oil stocks would outperform even if the economy rolled over.
XLE is the fund that holds the big US energy companies (Exxon, Chevron and the rest) — a one-ticket way to own the oil patch. Muir sat out energy for a long time while it was everyone's punching bag, then turned buyer when the US "liberation" of Venezuela made everyone dump oil on the idea that a flood of Venezuelan crude was coming. He dug into it and concluded the opposite: getting that oil out would take enormous money nobody will spend, and at today's prices US producers have already stopped funding new drilling — so oil can't fall much further without shutting the industry down.
The deeper appeal is that nobody owns energy stocks. When a sector is this unloved, even bad news can't hurt it much — and if the economy rolls over, fund managers who own none would actually have to buy it just to get back to normal weightings. He thinks oil stocks could outperform even in a downturn, the same strange way they did in 2008.
37:15And so I just look at energy as being one of the few places that you can hide in because no one owns it. Everyone's so bearish on it. And so if we do get a rotation, if we did get a situation where the economy rolled over and everyone would say in an economy rolling over, you should sell oil. I think the economy rolled over, you would find oil stocks actually outperform.
In short: Flows evidence, not a pick: the $31bn energy ETF saw its worst annual outflow in history in 2025 ("it wasn't even close"), and energy is ~3% of S&P market cap with ETF assets below 2020 lows — a contrarian-bullish sentiment tell. But oil equities already trade at/above NAV on the strip, so he prefers the convex oil-price expression (BNO) over the equities.
In short: Energy has roughly doubled the S&P's total return since the start of 2021, yet the sector is still less than 3% of the S&P 500 — "barely over one-third of Nvidia's capitalization alone" — and "remains brimming with bargain-priced stocks" (the list shrank a bit after a one-day oil-service explosion). The relative-weight bargain screen.
XLE is an ETF that owns the big US energy companies in one basket. Haymaker's point is a contrarian, relative-size one: energy stocks have actually roughly doubled the S&P 500's total return since early 2021, yet the whole sector is now less than 3% of the index — about a third the size of Nvidia by itself. That neglect, he argues, means the group is "brimming with bargain-priced stocks." It's a way to lean into a cheap, under-owned corner of the market that the index-obsessed crowd is ignoring.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.