Amid a Global Liquidity Freeze, Colin Gloeckler Implements Cross-Asset Defensive Allocation to Navigate Market Disruption

Since March 2020, global financial markets experienced an unprecedented liquidity freeze. As COVID-19 spread rapidly across Europe and the U.S., risk assets faced simultaneous sell-offs, with equities, corporate bonds, and even some traditional safe-haven assets experiencing irrational declines. In the U.S., the core issue was no longer valuation or economic cycle assessment—it was whether liquidity itself could continue to function. Even the Treasury market came under extreme stress, with short-term trading pressure reaching levels rarely seen, and market structure briefly entering a state of disorder.

In this environment, Colin Gloeckler’s approach went beyond reacting to sentiment. As a long-time strategist with experience in traditional U.S. financial institutions and cross-asset investing, he viewed this shock as a classic systemic liquidity event rather than an issue isolated to a single asset class. From his perspective, the pandemic was merely the trigger; what amplified volatility was the combination of highly correlated asset allocations and simultaneous deleveraging. This insight shaped his response: the priority was the portfolio’s survivability, not short-term rebound opportunities.

In practice, Gloeckler participated in and guided a cross-asset, defense-oriented allocation adjustment. The portfolio rapidly increased cash and high-liquidity asset holdings to address potential redemption pressure and the risk of market dysfunction. Exposure to low-liquidity credit and highly leveraged positions was reduced, avoiding forced sales at unfavorable prices during the tightest liquidity conditions. This approach was not a long-term rejection of risk assets but a measured response to a temporary market mechanism breakdown.

Within fixed income, he emphasized tradability over pure yield. High-quality U.S. Treasuries were treated as core stabilizers: even amid short-term price fluctuations, their long-term safe-haven role and policy support expectations remained irreplaceable. Credit selection criteria were tightened, prioritizing issuers with strong balance sheets and predictable cash flows to reduce the risk of credit events compounding liquidity shocks.

On the equity side, Gloeckler did not adopt a blanket defensive stance but reassessed the portfolio’s holdings. He retained companies that could continue operating under extreme conditions while reducing exposure to cyclical, highly leveraged sectors. This approach reflects a hallmark of U.S. institutional investing: in crisis periods, corporate survivability takes precedence over short-term price rebounds.

It is also worth noting that policy considerations began influencing allocation decisions during this period. By April 2020, the Fed’s unconventional measures were still in rapid deployment, but the signals clearly prioritized liquidity. In Gloeckler’s view, policy alone could not immediately restore market order but provided an essential foundation for medium- to long-term stability of risk assets. As a result, the portfolio did not exit the market entirely but maintained a defensive structure while awaiting the gradual effects of policy.

As of April 2020, market uncertainty remained elevated, and any forecast of future paths carried substantial risk. The cross-asset defensive allocation Gloeckler implemented was fundamentally a strategy designed to manage disorder risk. In the context of a global liquidity freeze, his focus was first on stabilizing the portfolio structure before reassessing opportunities, using disciplined asset allocation to navigate extreme conditions. This approach reflects the maturity, judgment, and practical experience of a U.S. institutional investor confronting a systemic crisis.