Was it only at the new year that the fanfare was heard for the FTSE 100 index breaking through 10,000 for the first time? It was – on 2 January – and the index then added another 900 points by the end of February. On Thursday, the Footsie briefly fell below that round number as Iran struck Qatar’s enormous Ras Laffan complex, which normally supplies a fifth of the world’s liquefied natural gas, before closing at 10,063, down 2.3% on the day.

There are two ways to view that price action. One is to say the sharp reversal from the peak represents a necessarily severe reaction to the war on Iran. Another is to conclude that a flat year-to-date return, after a bountiful 20% gain in 2025, suggests stock markets have barely begun to take seriously the inflationary impact if the war lasts many more weeks, or even months, and keeps oil above $100 a barrel.

“Markets are very resilient and complacent, ​and we are a bit surprised about that,” said Nicolai Tangen, the head of Norway’s $2tn (£1.5tn) sovereign wealth fund, earlier this week. Well, quite.

The resilience of companies themselves, as he suggested, is perhaps one explanation. Firms can cut costs and try to pass on increases in input prices. Recent shocks, such as the Covid pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, may have forced them to inject greater flexibility into their supply chains. It is still far too early to hear profit warnings. In the case of the Footsie, a size-weighted index, there are also a few big constituents that obviously benefit from higher oil and gas prices: Shell and BP are up 24% and 31% respectively since the new year.

Another explanation is that investors may be right – despite the strike on Ras Laffan – to keep the faith and believe that energy prices will calm down soon. That seems to be the consensus opinion. Bank of America’s closely watched regular poll of fund managers this week found that only 11% expect a barrel of Brent to be over $90 by the end of the year, and the average forecast was just $76.

That finding, though, also suggests there is plenty of room for expectations to be upset if the energy price shock intensifies. The pass-through effects would be fairly rapid. In a UK context, current oil and gas prices “are already enough to add around 1% to headline inflation in the coming months, while shortages of fertilisers could push food inflation higher later in the year”, reckons David Rees, the head of global economics at the fund manager Schroders.

In the circumstances, the Bank of England’s decision to hold interest rates was the only one possible. Policymakers are as clueless on the length of the war, and the cost of energy six weeks or six months from now, as stock market investors. The Bank’s messaging was inevitably of the fudged variety. On one hand, it stands “ready to act as necessary” on interest rates to control inflation. On the other, “markets are getting ahead of themselves in assuming rate rises”, said the governor, Andrew Bailey.

But one suspects we won’t have to wait too much longer to see central banks’ real analysis of the inflation risks. If oil stays at $100 for another month, higher interest rates will be the way to bet.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Tuesday issued an interpretation clarifying which types of cryptocurrencies are considered securities and how a “non-security” digital asset could meet certain conditions to become an investment contract.

The SEC’s new interpretation – which the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission also joined – classifies crypto tokens into five categories: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins and digital securities, with the agency specifying that federal securities laws only apply to digital securities.

The SEC also said that a “non-security” crypto asset could become subject to securities laws if an issuer offers it by promoting investment in a common enterprise from which a purchaser could expect to profit.

Under its chair, Paul Atkins, the SEC has laid out sweeping plans to overhaul capital markets regulations to accommodate cryptocurrencies and blockchain-based trading. Atkins has previously said that most cryptocurrencies are not securities, a designation that requires registration with the SEC along with certain disclosures.

The crypto sector has for years argued that existing US regulations are inappropriate for cryptocurrencies and has called for Congress and regulators to write new ones that clarify when a crypto token is a security, commodity or falls into another category, such as stablecoins.

Also on Tuesday, Atkins laid out a safe harbor proposal for cryptocurrency companies that would make it easier to sell tokens and raise money. Atkins said the SEC should consider a “fit-for-purpose startup exemption”, which would allow crypto entrepreneurs to raise a certain amount of money or operate for a certain period of time while exempt from the agency’s rules.

“It’s way past time for us to stop diagnosing the problem and start delivering the solution,” Atkins said in remarks at an event held by the Digital Chamber crypto trade group in Washington DC.

Atkins said he anticipates the SEC will release a proposal on crypto safe harbors for public comment in the coming weeks. He also said the agency’s so-called innovation exemption, which he has previously said will exempt companies from securities laws to allow them to engage in new business models, will be incorporated in the coming proposal.