60일 전쟁 회고: 글로벌 자본 시장의 '전쟁' 가격 책정, 정말 바뀌었나?

Original author: Frank, MSX Maitong

It has been two months since the joint US-Israel strike on Iran.

At the very beginning of February 28th, after the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, the Strait of Hormuz was abruptly closed. Based on the market intuition formed over the past few decades, this seemed like a straightforward trading formula—war breaks out, oil prices rise, risk aversion increases, gold surges, tech stocks face pressure.

But the capital market of 2026 delivered a much more complex and counter-intuitive result:

Gold did not continue its upward trajectory following traditional safe-haven logic, but instead fell significantly from its January highs; the Nasdaq ETF first dropped from positive year-to-date returns into negative territory, only to recover quickly on ceasefire expectations; the real outperformer was not gold, nor copper, but US energy assets far from the Middle East conflict zone, boasting stable production capacity and cash flow.

Even more paradoxical, during this period, the script on the battlefield—hot war, ceasefire, strait blockade, negotiation stalemate—was repeatedly rewritten, and the capital market's script flipped several pages as well.

Looking back at this 60-day conflict, it has made the market realize anew that war is a pricing chain that transmits layer by layer through energy supply, inflation expectations, interest rate paths, dollar strength, and asset valuations. The old formula of "war = buy gold" has failed, and the global capital market's pricing logic for "war" is being completely rewritten.

I. 60 Days, Three Phases

Let's first outline the timeline.

Looking back, this conflict can be roughly divided into three phases:

• Hot War Shock (Feb 28 – Early Apr): After the US-Israel strike on Iran, Iran retaliated with missiles and drones against Israel and US-related targets. The Strait of Hormuz was blocked, plunging the global energy market into tension, leading to a rapid rise in oil prices and a revaluation of energy stocks. Gold, meanwhile, fell about 20% from its near-$5,600 high in January.
• Ceasefire Bargaining (Early Apr – Apr 21): As regional mediation progressed, expectations of a ceasefire and the reopening of the strait emerged between the US and Iran. Risk assets began to recover. The Nasdaq ETF (QQQ.M) rebounded sharply from its lows. In this phase, the market was trading on the idea that "the worst case might not happen." However, the strait did not truly stabilize; events like the US blockade, Iran seizing merchant ships, and negotiations breaking down continued to recur.
• Stalemate & Repetition (Apr 22 – Present): Trump announced an extension of the ceasefire, but the US blockade and Iranian ship seizures continued concurrently. The situation remained suspended in a "no war, no peace" state. The market gradually recovered from panic. The Nasdaq rebounded from -8.4% YTD to +8.21%. Oil prices fell from above $110, but the Strait of Hormuz has not truly reopened.

It was precisely through the tug-of-war in these three phases that the market gradually understood it shouldn't simply trade on a single variable like "war starts" or "war ends." Instead, how the war changes energy, inflation, interest rates, and the dollar is the core of pricing.

As of April 26th, the performance of several core assets tells the story:

More noteworthy is the ranking among assets. 60 days ago, the market showed extreme divergence: Energy stocks surged, gold fell sharply, and the Nasdaq turned negative. Now, most assets have returned to positive territory (especially QQQ.M), but the ranking hasn't changed—energy stocks remain the strongest asset class in this conflict.

This further illustrates that the market's pricing of this war is not a binary choice between "safe haven vs. risk," but a chain of transmission starting from the energy supply shock, moving through "oil prices — inflation — interest rates — dollar — valuations."

II. Why the Old Formula "War = Buy Gold" Failed

Therefore, understanding the core of this "counter-intuitive" 60-day market movement requires breaking down the transmission chain.

After all, the most counter-intuitive aspect of this market cycle is gold.

When war breaks out, the strait is blocked, and oil prices surge, gold should be the most direct safe-haven choice. However, in reality, gold did not accelerate its rise in the early stages of the conflict; instead, it fell significantly from its January highs. On the surface, this looks like a "safe-haven failure," but if we dissect the macro transmission chain, we find that gold's performance was actually trading on the other side of the war: a stronger tightening expectation.

• The first layer of transmission comes from oil prices: The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz dramatically increased uncertainty in crude oil and LNG transport. The rise in energy prices quickly shifted from a geopolitical premium to inflationary pressure. For the market, this meant the Fed couldn't easily pivot to easing and might need to maintain a high-interest-rate environment for longer.
• The second layer of transmission comes from interest rates and the dollar: Higher real interest rates increase the opportunity cost of holding gold. A stronger dollar makes dollar-denominated gold more expensive for non-US buyers. A Reuters report on gold trends in late April also mentioned that rising oil prices push up inflation and interest rate expectations, which in turn pressure gold through the dollar and yield channels.
• The third layer is the backlash of crowded trades itself: Before the war broke out, gold had already experienced an extreme rally, surging from under $3,000 in early 2025 to near its January 2026 highs. When a trade becomes too crowded and a sudden shock hits, funds may not continue to add positions; instead, they might choose to lock in profits first. For some short-to-medium-term capital, war wasn't a new reason to buy, but a window to take profits.

This is why the old formula "war = buy gold" appears too simplistic in this cycle. Gold is still a safe-haven asset, but it doesn't price in a vacuum. As long as the war pushes up energy prices, inflation expectations, and real interest rates, gold will simultaneously face the pull of both safe-haven demand and tightening pressure.

In other words, gold didn't ignore the war; it was merely reacting to the war's economic consequences.

In contrast, the performance of the Nasdaq ETF resembles a high-volatility stress test. After the war broke out, QQQ.M fell from positive year-to-date returns into negative territory. The tech sector saw significant capital outflows, giving way to energy, value, and sectors with more certain cash flows.

However, when ceasefire expectations emerged, the Nasdaq quickly recovered, turning its year-to-date returns positive again. The logic behind this rebound is not mysterious either. It was mainly driven by improved ceasefire expectations, oil prices retreating from highs, marginal easing of inflationary pressures, the market re-pricing the possibility of rate cuts, and thus growth stock valuations finding room for recovery.

But the problem is that every link in this chain hasn't been fully confirmed yet. The Strait of Hormuz hasn't resumed stable transit, negotiations are still volatile, oil prices remain in a high range, and the foundation for a Fed pivot is not solid.

Therefore, the Nasdaq ETF's rebound seems more like a "risk appetite recovery" than a complete resolution of macro pressures.

III. Gold Fell, Who Was the Biggest Winner?

The answer is energy stocks.

In this market cycle, what the market was truly willing to pay a premium for was not an abstract sense of security, but verifiable, deliverable energy supply capacity far from the conflict zone. This includes major US energy companies with stable production, more controllable transportation routes, and more certain cash flows, away from the Middle East conflict center.

This explains why OXY.M, XOM.M, and CVX.M significantly outperformed gold ETF tokens and Nasdaq ETF tokens. The market's risk aversion logic shifted from the past's "buy gold" to "buy certain supply," from "hide in non-yielding assets" to "hold cash-flow assets that can benefit from supply shortages."

This is one of the most noteworthy changes brought about by the 2026 war. Today, geopolitical risks certainly haven't disappeared, but the capital market's reaction to them has clearly changed. The old linear reflex of "war breaks out → risk rises → buy gold" is being replaced by a more complex transmission framework: The market no longer just trades the war itself, but deconstructs how the war will affect energy supply, inflation path, interest rate expectations, dollar strength, and industry profit distribution, ultimately re-pricing the risk-reward ratio of different assets.

So, for investors, the key is not just to judge "whether the war will escalate," but to further determine which chain the conflict will impact the market through, and which tools to use to express their views. Choices must be more refined than ever:

• If you judge the conflict remains stalled, Strait of Hormuz transit remains uncertain, and oil prices stay high, then energy US stock tokens like OXY.M, XOM.M, and CVX.M might be more direct tools. After all, they trade on the revaluation of "safe supply" and "energy cash flow."
• If you judge a genuine ceasefire materializes, the strait gradually reopens, oil price pressures ease, and the market re-prices rate cut expectations, then previously pressured tech/growth assets could continue to recover. Nasdaq ETF tokens like QQQ.M would be better suited to capture the rebound in risk appetite.
• If you judge that pressure from the dollar and real interest rates is easing, the precious metal attributes of gold and silver could regain pricing room. Tokens like GLD.M (Gold ETF) and SIVR.M (Silver ETF) are expected to regain flexibility. Silver, in particular, has strong industrial properties tied to demand in photovoltaics, electronics, AI hardware, etc., potentially offering higher upside elasticity than gold.
• If you judge that global manufacturing, energy transition, grid upgrades, and AI data center expansion remain the longer-term themes, then the Copper ETF token CPER.M behaves more like a medium-to-long-term structural tool. Although copper prices are sensitive to the dollar, demand, and inventories in the short term, from a longer perspective, it remains one of the most important metals in the global infrastructure repricing process.

Notably, from a trading structure perspective, for investors looking to participate in commodity market movements, the advantage of ETF tokens lies in their suitability for phased position building and position management. Compared to directly trading futures or spot contracts, they avoid more complex issues like delivery, rollover, and margin management, making them more suitable for expressing short-to-medium-term swings or medium-to-long-term allocation ideas.

As for Nasdaq ETF tokens, market divergence is equally clear.

If an investor judges that oil prices will stay stubbornly high, inflation remains sticky, and the interest rate environment continues to suppress growth stock valuations, then shorting QQQ.M, or hedging via a 3x Inverse Nasdaq ETF token like SQQQ.M, could be a more direct risk management approach.

Conversely, if an investor judges that subsequent data like non-farm payrolls or inflation will weaken, leading the Fed to release accommodative signals again, allowing the tech sector to continue its oversold rebound, then going long on QQQ.M, or using a 3x Long Nasdaq ETF token like TQQQ.M to express a higher elasticity recovery expectation, is another viable path.

So, the key point here is not to provide a single correct direction.

The market has never automatically gravitated towards a specific asset class just because of the word "war." What truly matters is whether investors can break down their macro judgment into tradable asset paths. For example, is it trading energy supply or betting on falling interest rates? Is it betting on a precious metals recovery or a tech stock rebound? Is it going long on the certain cash flows amid volatility or hedging the downside risk of overvalued assets?

After all, in the new market environment, judging the direction is only the first step. The more important thing is, once you form a judgment, can you use sufficiently efficient, flexible, and low-barrier tools to translate that judgment into an executable trading strategy?

Final Thoughts

60 days ago, if someone told you:

• The US and Israel would bomb Iran, the Supreme Leader would be assassinated, the Strait of Hormuz would close, but gold would fall by 16%;
• Tech stocks would first drop 8%, then rise back 8%, forming a V-shape over two months;
• Hardly anyone dared to heavyweight energy at the start of the year, but OXY would surge nearly 40%;
• The YTD returns of the Nasdaq and Gold would be almost identical (+8.21% vs +9.32%), while OXY's return would be 4 times theirs;

You probably wouldn't believe it.

But this is the market of 2026. Old logic hasn't completely failed, but it's no longer sufficient. The market, tempered by this 60-day conflict, has learned not to make simple knee-jerk reactions to the keyword "war." Instead, it deconstructs the war's economic transmission paths, assesses the credibility of ceasefires, and dynamically prices stalemates.

What we can do is not to predict the next answer, but to ensure we have the right tools in hand when the answer emerges.

For the global investment market under Trump's governance, any possibility is real. What we can do is not to predict the next answer, but to ensure we have sufficiently suitable tools in hand as the answers gradually emerge.

The ability to efficiently translate judgment into trading—that is the true dividing line.