Insights 
VT 
Trump plans to initiate the dispatch of letters on trade tariffs starting Friday. These letters will detail the applicable tariff rates.
He believes sending these letters is more straightforward than negotiating trade deals. He anticipates signing a few more trade agreements soon.
Diplomatic Stalemate
In other developments, Trump reported no progress with Putin on issues related to Iran and Ukraine. Following a lengthy conversation, he expressed dissatisfaction, noting, “I didn’t make any progress with him at all.”
The article outlines two focal developments. First, Trump is preparing to send letters that specify trade tariff rates, planning to start this process on Friday. His stated preference for this method over in-depth negotiations suggests a tactical choice to press forward more directly, using administrative measures to assert pressure or send a signal. Rather than going through extended discussions which may yield mixed results, he is opting to communicate terms unilaterally through these notices.
Second, the piece mentions that a long discussion was held between Trump and Putin. This apparently yielded no outcomes on major international concerns, specifically those related to Iran and Ukraine. The lack of progress reported by Trump speaks to a breakdown or stall in diplomatic engagement on these points. He openly admitted a failure to make headway, indicating either stark differences in position or an intent from both sides to hold firm, at least publicly.
From our stance as market participants, one cannot ignore how letters outlining new tariff rates, rather than joint agreements with trading partners, may inject fresh layers of uncertainty into pricing models. When tariff levels are decided and communicated unilaterally, rather than shaped through reciprocal talks, it often limits the ability for counterparties to respond with predictability. This way of operating is more abrupt. As a result, we may see a bump in directional volatility, particularly in contracts tied to affected sectors or countries named in this batch of letters.
Further, the negative tone voiced after the diplomatic exchange with Putin may maintain existing geopolitical tensions around Eastern Europe and the Middle East. These protracted areas of dispute often have extended timelines for resolution, and they tend to leave energy and commodity exposures more vulnerable than usual. The matter isn’t just about headlines—it may feed into the longer-term risk premiums built into some currency crosses, especially those connected to safe havens or oil-linked economies.
Market Anticipation and Volatility
In the coming weeks, markets may respond to the staggered release of trade terms from the White House. Until the letters are made public, positioning will likely remain tentative. The coverage schedule of these communications could serve as a source of momentum one way or another. We are likely to see option premiums reflect this anticipated movement beforehand. For those of us involved in managing structured exposure, a deeper look at calendar spreads could help isolate the pricing of expected tariff news versus background trade liquidity.
It’s worth keeping a close watch on any country-specific references within the outgoing communication, since each new targeted audience may introduce a fresh batch of repricing. When tariffs are introduced without coordinated discussion, correlation assumptions that may have held during previous periods become less dependable. We prefer to stress test not just volatility but also implied correlation assumptions across multi-leg positions.
Though the diplomatic update yielded no fresh inputs on Iran or Ukraine, the absence of outcome sends a signal as well. Where progress fails, existing sanctions, trade limitations, and supply risks persist in their current form. What sounded like a long call but ended with no shift helps keep the policy environment unchanged, but still tense.
We are already beginning to see certain implied curves begin to shift. There’s no surprise here given the twin messages: policy warning on trade, and no relief on the geopolitical front. Uncertainty, yes—but also opportunity if the flow of information unfolds in a predictable way over the coming sessions. Mapping letters-to-markets reaction could give us a short-term statistical edge. But any assumption of symmetry in responses should be double-checked. The content and geography of each letter could produce uneven effects.
