Gilts Slide into Worst Month Since Truss
March 23, 20267 min readStandard
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
giltsuk-bondsfixed-incomeoil-pricesmarket-risk
Gilts are on track for their worst monthly performance since the policy shock of September–October 2022 that precipitated the Liz Truss government’s collapse, with Bloomberg reporting on March 23, 2026 that benchmark yields rallied higher and prices fell sharply as energy markets repriced risk. The immediate catalyst was a sharp oil-price uptick: Brent crude gained roughly 6–8% in the first half of March 2026, a move Bloomberg linked to renewed geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and supply disruption fears. On March 23, 2026, UK 10-year gilt yields moved up by about 15–25 basis points intraday to near 4.2% (Bloomberg, 23 Mar 2026), reversing earlier gains this month and putting sovereign debt returns in negative territory month-to-date. The move has not been isolated to gilts: US 10-year Treasuries and European sovereign curves also steepened, though the gilt move has been the most pronounced in relative terms versus core European peers. Investors face an increasingly binary risk set—growth concerns and central bank vigilance on inflation versus near-term commodity-driven repricing—and the market response is rapid and cross-asset.
The 2026 episode recalls the October 2022 gilt crisis in which rapid fiscal expansion and market illiquidity forced emergency Bank of England (BoE) intervention. That 2022 episode saw tenors across the UK curve spike in volatility and yields move materially higher in a compressed timeframe; by comparison, the March 2026 move is driven externally by energy rather than an immediate fiscal shock. Bloomberg (Mar 23, 2026) explicitly framed the current rout as the worst monthly decline for gilts since the Truss-era sell-off in 2022, citing month-to-date losses in core gilts that approach early-2023 levels of stress. Historical context is important: gilts have historically traded with a premium to comparable-duration sovereigns when UK-specific risks rise, but broad commodity shocks have a way of forcing correlation across government bonds when inflation expectations are repriced.
From a policy backdrop, the Bank of England has signalled a data-dependent stance through early 2026, maintaining that disinflation remains a priority while recognising growth headwinds. The BoE's governance and capacity to act are not the same as during the 2022 emergency—for example, BoE balance sheet composition and liquidity facilities are structurally different today—but the market reaction demonstrates that gilts remain sensitive to sudden shifts in risk perception. Market positioning entering March 2026 was already light on duration after a strong run in late 2025 and early 2026; the oil shock compressed risk premia and produced a pronounced re-leveraging in fixed income desks.
Finally, the fiscal calendar matters. The upcoming UK Budget and growth projections make gilts susceptible to both domestic policy revisions and external shocks. Even absent a fiscal surprise, the fact that gilts are underperforming German bunds and, on a month-to-date basis, are lagging US Treasuries, highlights a cross-jurisdictional repricing that amplifies the domestic policy sensitivity of UK long-term rates. Relative performance is a function of both macro delta and market microstructure; in the current episode, both contribute to the severity of the move.
On March 23, 2026 Bloomberg reported the 10-year UK gilt yield rising roughly 15–25 basis points intraday to near 4.2% (Bloomberg, Mar 23, 2026). Month-to-date price declines in benchmark gilts were quoted as approaching levels not seen since October 2022, with several liquid gilts down low-single-digit percentages over the month. Brent crude oil, the proximate driver highlighted by coverage, was reported up about 6–8% in the early March spike; that translated into higher headline inflation expectations across the G7 in the short run and prompted a risk-off bid in fixed income. US 10-year yields also moved higher—with Bloomberg noting a rise in the mid-teens basis points on the same day—yet the UK move outpaced the US on a relative basis.
Market-implied inflation breakevens also shifted: short-dated UK breakevens widened noticeably, signalling that markets are marking up the probability of a transitory near-term bump to inflation driven by energy. If short-term breakevens climb by 10–20 basis points, that forces real yields higher even if nominal yields are only modestly higher. Liquidity metrics showed increased bid-ask spreads in gilts and larger-than-normal dealer inventory drains, a pattern similar to the October 2022 episode but not as acute in scale. Bloomberg and trading desk reports on March 23 indicated that stop-loss and flow-driven selling amplified price moves in core gilts during the oil repricing.
Comparatively, year-on-year performance of gilts is now materially weaker than many peers: as of March 23, 2026, UK 10-year returns were lagging German bunds and roughly 200–300 basis points off their best levels over the prior 12 months, according to aggregated market returns captured by Bloomberg and BoE datasets. That spread is significant because it reflects both the UK-specific repricing and a wider shift in risk premia across Europe. The combination of rising yields, compressed liquidity and heightened volatility increases the short-term cost of hedging for pension funds and insurers who are large holders of long-dated gilts.
Pension funds and liability-driven investors are among the most immediately affected participants. Short-term yield spikes increase mark-to-market deficits for long-duration liabilities even if hedges perform as intended over the long run. Insurers with concentrated gilt duration face capital and SCR (Solvency Capital Requirement) implications; a sudden, correlated move across gilt tenors can push solvency ratios lower, triggering asset allocation decisions that are suboptimal from a long-term perspective. Bloomberg's March 23, 2026 coverage emphasised that balance-sheet sensitive holders were forced to contemplate tactical responses to meet margin and capital calls in an environment where the natural buyer of duration is less active.
Banks and money-market participants are also impacted via funding costs and secured overnight financing rates. The gilt sell-off has reverberations into repo markets where gilts serve as collateral; higher yields and wider haircuts can increase the cost of secured funding and compress dealer balance sheets. Meanwhile, corporate borrowers face an indirect transmission mechanism: if gilt yields continue to lift, there will likely be pressure on the sterling corporate curve, raising refinancing costs for issuers and potentially repricing new issuance spreads wider versus Libor/SONIA-linked benchmarks.
From a cross-asset perspective, the commodity shock that precipitated the gilt move also affects sterling FX. GBP tends to be sensitive to energy import shocks—an oil price uptick can weigh on the current account and sterling—while simultaneously prompting an upward repricing of nominal yields. The net effect on sterling is therefore ambiguous and driven by real-time trade-offs between inflation expectations and growth prospects.
The immediate risk is that a short-lived commodity shock evolves into a self-reinforcing loop of higher yields, liquidity drains and forced selling. March 2026 tests that feedback mechanism: if energy prices remain elevated for several months, headline inflation could materially overshoot central bank expectations and force tighter policy for longer. Conversely, if the oil spike cools and demand-side pressures moderate, yields could retrace some of the move; the asymmetric risk is that market participants have less confidence in that outcome now than they did at the start of the month.
Another material risk is policy confusion. The Bank of England has limited real-time tools to offset a commodity-driven repricing that raises real yields without triggering a growth contraction. Intervention in gilt markets has precedent—2022 demonstrated that extraordinary action can work to restore market functioning—but such interventions carry moral hazard and fiscal considerations. Market participants will watch BoE communications closely for signs of liquidity or backstop measures, and any ambiguity could prolong volatility.
Finally, liquidity risk remains elevated. Dealer inventories are constrained relative to structural post-2020 norms, and synthetic hedges (futures and swaps) can behave differently from cash gilts under stress. That makes calibration of scenarios—ranging from a 25–50 basis-point sustained move in 10-year yields to a full re-steepening across the curve—essential for institutional portfolios that rely on gilt duration for liability matching.
Fazen Capital views the March 2026 episode as a classic commodity-driven repricing that exposed structural vulnerabilities in gilt market liquidity rather than a purely fiscal or sovereign-credit event. The non-obvious implication is that a persistent oil-price regime change would have a more pernicious impact on real yields than headline nominal moves suggest: even if nominal yields rise modestly, the combination of higher breakevens and tighter liquidity increases the real cost of hedging long-duration liabilities. This dynamic is particularly relevant for long-dated gilt holders and pension schemes that have become structurally dependent on gilts for duration exposure.
A contrarian observation is that episodes like this can create re-entry points for long-term strategic buyers who are not liquidity-constrained. Historical precedents—post-2022 stabilization and subsequent retracement in gilts—suggest that if the commodity shock proves transient, long-duration exposure can offer compelling long-term carry relative to incremental credit risk in corporates. That said, the timing of such reallocation is difficult; it demands both disciplined liquidity buffers and active scenario planning around policy intervention thresholds.
Operationally, Fazen Capital recommends institutions stress-test portfolios across a range of oil-price and policy response scenarios, explicitly modelling liquidity and margin impacts rather than relying solely on duration-immunisation metrics. Scenario analysis should include a 30–50 basis-point sustained rise in 10-year yields, a 150–300 basis-point shift in long-dated real yields (breakevens plus nominal), and counterparty margin calls under widening repo haircuts. For further discussion on cross-asset and fixed-income scenarios, see our fixed income macro commentary and research library at topic and topic.
Q: What historical precedent should investors use as a guide for gilt behavior in this episode?
A: The most relevant precedent is the October 2022 gilt market dysfunction associated with fiscal policy surprise and rapid mark-to-market moves. That episode demonstrates how liquidity can evaporate, bid-ask spreads can widen materially, and central bank intervention can be required to restore functioning. The March 2026 episode differs in that the trigger is commodity-led (oil) rather than fiscal, but the market microstructure vulnerabilities exposed are similar.
Q: How might pension funds pragmatically respond to increased gilt volatility without crystallising losses?
A: Practical responses include re-evaluating intra-portfolio liquidity buffers, considering phased rebalancing rather than immediate reduction of duration, and using hedges that minimise margin volatility (for example, options instead of linear futures) where appropriate. Historical lessons show that immediate reaction to mark-to-market losses can force suboptimal sales; structuring contingency liquidity and hedging ladders provides more optionality.
The March 2026 gilt sell-off—the worst month since the Truss-era rout—is a liquidity-and-commodity-driven repricing that raises near-term risks for liability holders and market functioning, while presenting differentiated tactical opportunities for well-capitalised, patient investors. Monitor oil-driven inflation expectations, Bank of England communications, and liquidity metrics closely.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Sponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.