Corporate America Was More Confident Than You Think

If you only watched the headlines, Corporate America looked cautious.

Markets were jumpy. Oil was surging. The Fed was not rushing to cut. Every fresh geopolitical scare seemed to bring a new reason to talk about slower growth, tighter margins, and nervous executives. That is why the real surprise in early 2026 was not that companies had risks. It was that many of them still sounded a lot more confident than the mood implied.

The evidence is better than a vague “animal spirits” cliché. In the first quarter of 2026, the Conference Board’s CEO Confidence measure surged to 59 from 48 in the prior quarter, moving back above the 50 line that signals more positive than negative responses. At the same time, the Business Roundtable’s CEO Economic Outlook index showed stronger expectations for sales, hiring, and capital investment over the next six months. This was not the posture of boardrooms hiding under their desks. It was the posture of executives who still saw reasons to spend, hire, and compete.

That does not mean everything was healthy. It means something more useful: corporate confidence in early 2026 was stronger than market nerves suggested, and that matters because business behavior often tells you more about the real economy than one bad trading day does.

The survey data was stronger than the mood

Start with the cleanest evidence.

The Conference Board’s Q1 2026 CEO survey showed a sharp rebound in sentiment. Confidence rose to 59, the highest level since Q1 2025. CEOs became more positive both about current conditions and about the next six months. The same release said 35% of CEOs expected to increase capital spending, up from 22% in Q4 2025, while only 11% expected to cut it. That is not euphoric, but it is clearly constructive.

The Business Roundtable numbers told a similar story. Its Q1 2026 survey showed the sales outlook subindex rising to 126, capital investment plans climbing to 91, and hiring plans improving to 50. Values above 50 signal expansion, so those readings suggest that the CEOs of many large U.S. companies were still planning for growth rather than contraction. In plain English, the boardroom conversation looked more like “how do we deploy?” than “how do we hide?”

The most striking data point may have come from CFOs. Reuters reported today that a Richmond Fed and Duke University survey of 473 CFOs found a largely solid outlook before the latest war shock fully hit. The median CFO expected 5% revenue growth this year and 1.6% employment growth, while most firms anticipated higher demand and no major layoffs. Tariffs, labor quality, and sales were concerns, but the baseline mood was still mostly positive.

That last point matters because CFOs are usually less romantic than strategists. They are the people staring at budgets, input costs, and payroll. When they still expect growth and more hiring, it tells you the confidence was operational, not just rhetorical.

Confidence was showing up in actions, not just words

Surveys are useful. Spending decisions matter more.

That is where the “more confident than you think” story gets stronger. Reuters reported last month that Alphabet planned $175 billion to $185 billion in capital spending for 2026, up sharply from $91.45 billion in 2025, as it pushed harder into AI and cloud infrastructure. That is not a defensive move. It is a company spending like demand and strategic urgency are both real. Reuters also noted that Big Tech as a group was expected to spend more than $500 billion on AI this year.

Micron sent a similar signal from a different corner of the market. Reuters reported on March 18 that the company lifted its 2026 capital spending plan by $5 billion to more than $25 billion, with further increases expected in 2027, because AI-driven memory demand remained so strong. Investors may have worried about the price tag, but from a macro perspective the message was obvious: a major semiconductor company was still spending aggressively because it believed the opportunity was durable enough to justify it.

Dealmaking tells the same story. Reuters reported on March 20 that global M&A activity had already reached about $1.1 trillion in 2026, up 23% from a year earlier, and Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon said he still expected M&A to accelerate this year despite war-related disruption. Back in January, Reuters also reported that top M&A lawyers saw a “bulging pipeline” for 2026 after a near-record 2025, with little reason to be anything other than highly optimistic. Companies do not keep pursuing acquisitions like that when confidence has truly collapsed.

The same logic applies to capital markets. Reuters reported in February that Goldman expected U.S. IPO proceeds to quadruple to a record $160 billion in 2026 as dealmaking and issuance rebounded. That kind of forecast only makes sense if issuers, bankers, and investors all believe companies still want to raise money for growth rather than merely preserve cash.

Why executives were still this willing to lean in

Part of the answer is simple: many companies still saw demand.

The CFO survey found most firms expected higher demand and no major layoffs. That matters because executives will tolerate a lot of macro noise if order books, pricing, and revenue still look good enough. Many of them were not predicting a boom. They were predicting something more manageable: slower growth, but still growth.

Another part is the AI arms race.

A lot of the confidence in 2026 was not the old easy-cycle kind. It was competitive confidence. Companies were spending because they felt they had to. Alphabet’s massive capex plan and Micron’s sharply higher spending are good examples. These are not firms behaving as though they can wait comfortably on the sidelines. They are acting like the cost of underinvesting could be worse than the cost of near-term caution.

The policy backdrop also helped in some areas. Reuters reported that M&A lawyers and bankers believed deals were moving faster under the Trump administration and that the regulatory climate looked more manageable than it did a year earlier. That does not solve every business problem, of course. Still, it helps explain why companies were willing to revisit acquisitions, IPOs, and other growth plans even while markets remained choppy.

But the confidence was not universal

This is where the story needs honesty.

Corporate America was more confident than many people thought, but it was not blindly optimistic. Reuters reported last month that U.S. job cuts were continuing as companies pursued efficiency, especially with more AI adoption. Some sectors were spending hard. Others were streamlining. That is not contradiction so much as a sign that confidence was selective. Firms felt good enough to invest where returns looked compelling, while still cutting where productivity or technology made it possible.

The timing of the surveys matters too. Reuters was explicit that the Richmond Fed-Duke CFO survey was conducted mostly before the U.S.-Israel-Iran war began on February 28 and before oil spiked above $100. So some of the confidence data reflects a pre-shock world. That does not make it useless. It does mean investors should not treat it as a perfect live reading of today’s mood.

There is also a difference between big-company confidence and broad economic comfort. Large companies can still feel good enough to spend on AI, acquisitions, or infrastructure even while households feel squeezed and smaller businesses struggle. In other words, “Corporate America was confident” does not mean “every part of the economy felt great.” It means the companies with the balance-sheet strength and scale to act were still acting.

Why investors should care

This matters because confidence at the corporate level often shows up first in capex, hiring plans, deal pipelines, and fundraising activity.

Those decisions help shape future earnings, productivity, and market leadership. If CEOs and CFOs are still willing to spend, hire modestly, and pursue transactions, that tells investors the economy may have more internal resilience than the daily fear cycle suggests. It does not remove macro risk. It does help explain why some strategists remain constructive on earnings even while headlines stay messy.

It also matters for the Fed. Stronger corporate spending can keep growth more durable than expected, which is good for the economy but can also keep inflation pressure alive in certain areas. That is one reason markets cannot simply translate “confident companies” into “easy rate cuts.” Business confidence can be bullish for profits and still awkward for monetary policy.

Most of all, it is a reminder not to confuse market mood with business intent. Stocks can wobble for a week. Executives setting multibillion-dollar capex plans, M&A pipelines, or IPO calendars are making a much longer bet. In early 2026, a lot of them were still betting that the future was worth spending for.

The bottom line

Corporate America was more confident than you think because the people actually running large companies were still planning for growth, not retreat.

CEO confidence rose sharply in Q1 2026. Business Roundtable members increased sales, capex, and hiring expectations. CFOs still forecast revenue growth and modest headcount gains. Meanwhile, companies were backing up that sentiment with real money through AI infrastructure spending, M&A activity, and revived IPO ambitions.

That does not mean they were carefree. It means they were more constructive than the daily mood suggested. And for investors, that is a useful distinction. Fear can dominate the tape for days. Confidence shows up in capital budgets, deal rooms, and hiring plans. In 2026, that quieter signal was stronger than many people noticed.

HypeBucks
XP of the Day: When CEOs lift capex plans from 22% to 35% expecting increases, that usually says more about real business confidence than one ugly market week.
Next Move: Read the latest earnings update from one company you own and circle three things: capex, hiring, and demand commentary.