60 ngày chiến tranh: Định giá của thị trường vốn toàn cầu đối với "chiến tranh" có thực sự thay đổi?

Original Author: Frank, MSX Maitong

Two months have passed since the joint US-Israeli strike on Iran.

At the very beginning of February 28, Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei was assassinated, and the Strait of Hormuz was abruptly closed. Based on market intuition formed over the past few decades, this was almost a set of trading formulas that needed no second thought—war breaks out, oil prices rise, risk aversion heats up, gold surges, tech stocks come under pressure.

But the capital markets of 2026 delivered a much more complex and counter-intuitive answer sheet:

Gold did not continue its upward trajectory following traditional risk-averse logic; instead, it pulled back significantly from its January high. The NASDAQ ETF first turned from positive year-to-date returns into negative territory, only to recover rapidly amid ceasefire expectations. The true standout performer wasn't gold, nor copper, but US energy assets located far from the Middle East conflict zone, possessing stable production capacity and cash flow.

More paradoxically, during this period, active combat, ceasefires, a strait blockade, and stalled negotiations... the script on the battlefield was rewritten repeatedly, and the script in capital markets turned just as many pages.

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 trajectories, dollar strength, and asset valuations. Not only has the old formula "war = buy gold" failed, but 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 round of conflict can be broadly 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. Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz was hindered, quickly pushing global energy markets into a state of tension, leading to a rapid rise in oil prices and a revaluation of energy stocks. Gold, on the other hand, plunged about 20% from its early January high of nearly $5,600.
• Ceasefire Negotiations (Early Apr – Apr 21): With regional mediation moving forward, 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. During this phase, the market traded on the premise that 'the worst case might not happen.' However, the strait did not truly return to stable operation, and events like the US blockade, Iran seizing merchant ships, and talks breaking down continued to occur repeatedly.
• Stalemate & Repetition (Apr 22 – Present): Trump announced an extension of the ceasefire, but the US blockade and Iran's seizure of merchant ships occurred simultaneously. The situation remained suspended in a state of 'neither war nor peace.' The market gradually shook off its panic. The NASDAQ rebounded from -8.4% year-to-date to +8.21%. Oil prices fell from above $110, but the Strait of Hormuz still hasn't truly resumed normal traffic.

It is precisely through the tug-of-war in these three phases that the market gradually understood it should no longer simply trade based on the single variable of 'war starts' or 'war ends.' Instead, the core of pricing is how war changes energy, inflation, interest rates, and the dollar.

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

What's more noteworthy is the ranking among the assets. 60 days ago, the market showed extreme divergence: Energy stocks soared, gold plunged, the NASDAQ turned negative. Now, most assets have turned positive again (especially QQQ.M), but the ranking hasn't changed—energy stocks remain the strongest class of assets in this conflict.

This further illustrates that the market's pricing of this war is not a binary choice between 'risk-off vs. risk-on'. Rather, it starts from the energy supply shock and continuously transmits along the chain: 'oil prices — inflation — interest rates — dollar — valuations.'

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

Therefore, understanding the core of this 60-day 'counter-intuitive' market behavior lies in breaking down the transmission chain.

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

War breaks out, the strait is blockaded, oil prices spike—gold should be the most direct safe-haven choice. But the reality is that gold did not continue its accelerated rise in the early stages of the conflict; instead, it pulled back significantly from its January high. On the surface, this looks like 'safe-haven failure,' but if we dissect the macro transmission chain, we find that gold's performance was actually trading another side of the war: stronger tightening expectations.

• The first layer of transmission comes from oil prices: The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz drastically increased uncertainty in crude oil and LNG transport. The rise in energy prices quickly transformed from a geopolitical premium into inflationary pressure. For the market, this means the Fed cannot easily pivot to easing and may need to maintain a high-interest-rate environment for longer.
• The second layer 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 in late April on gold's trend also mentioned that rising oil prices pushed up inflation and interest rate expectations, consequently putting pressure on gold through dollar and yield channels.
• The third layer is the backlash of the crowded trade 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 high. When a trade becomes too crowded and a sudden shock hits, capital may not necessarily increase its position; instead, it might choose to lock in profits first. For some short-to-medium-term capital, war is not a new reason to buy, but a window to cash out.

This is precisely why the old formula 'War = Buy Gold' appears too simplistic in this market cycle. Gold remains a safe-haven asset, but it is not priced in a vacuum. As long as the war pushes up energy prices, inflation expectations, and real interest rates, gold will simultaneously face a tug-of-war between safe-haven demand and tightening pressure.

In other words, gold hasn't ignored the war; it is merely reacting to the economic consequences of the war.

In contrast, the trajectory of the NASDAQ ETF looked more like 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 experienced significant capital outflows, with high-valuation growth assets giving way to sectors with more certain energy, value, and cash flow.

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; it was primarily driven by improved ceasefire expectations, oil prices retreating from their highs, marginal easing of inflation pressures, and the market repricing the possibility of rate cuts, thereby creating room for growth stock valuations to recover.

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

Therefore, the rebound in the NASDAQ ETF looks more like a 'risk appetite repair' rather than a complete removal of macro pressure.

III. Gold Fell, Who Was the Biggest Winner?

The answer is energy stocks.

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

This explains why OXY.M, XOM.M, and CVX.M saw significantly higher gains than gold ETF tokens and NASDAQ ETF tokens. The market's risk-averse logic shifted from the old 'buy gold' to 'buy deterministic supply,' and from 'hide in non-yielding assets' to 'hold cash-flow assets that benefit from supply shortages.'

This is one of the most noteworthy changes brought about by the 2026 war. To this day, geopolitical risks have certainly not disappeared, but the way capital markets react 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; it is dissecting how the war will affect energy supply, the inflation path, interest rate expectations, dollar strength, and profit distribution across the industrial chain, ultimately repricing the risk-reward ratio of different assets.

For investors, the key is no longer just judging 'whether the war will escalate.' It's about further judging through which chain this conflict will impact the market and what tools to use to express one's views. The choices must be more granular than before:

• If you judge the conflict remains in stalemate, traffic through the Strait of Hormuz stays uncertain, and oil prices remain high, then energy US stock tokens like OXY.M, XOM.M, and CVX.M might be more direct expression tools, as they trade on the revaluation of 'safe supply' and 'energy cash flows';
• If you judge a ceasefire is truly achieved, the strait gradually resumes traffic, oil price pressure eases, and the market reprices rate cut expectations, then previously pressured tech growth assets may continue to recover. NASDAQ ETF tokens like QQQ.M would be better suited to capture the rise in risk appetite;
• If you judge that pressure on the dollar and real interest rates is beginning to ease, the precious metal attributes of gold and silver may regain pricing room. GLD.M gold ETF tokens and SIVR.M silver ETF tokens could regain their upside flexibility. Silver, in particular, also has strong industrial properties linked to demand from solar, electronics, and AI hardware, potentially offering higher upside elasticity than gold;
• If you judge that global manufacturing, the energy transition, grid upgrades, and AI data center expansion remain the longer-term themes, then the CPER.M copper ETF token looks more like a medium-to-long-term structural tool. While copper prices are volatile in the short term due to the dollar, demand, and inventory, from a longer perspective, it remains one of the most important metals in the global repricing of infrastructure;

It's worth noting from a trading structure perspective that for investors looking to participate in commodity markets, ETF tokens offer the advantage of being suitable for phased position building and position management. Compared to directly trading futures or spot contracts, they avoid more complex issues like delivery, rollovers, and margin management, making them better suited for expressing short-to-medium-term swings or medium-to-long-term allocation strategies.

Regarding Nasdaq ETF tokens, market divergence is equally clear.

If an investor judges that oil prices will remain stubbornly high, inflation sticky, and the interest rate environment will continue to suppress growth stock valuations, then shorting QQQ.M, or hedging via the SQQQ.M triple-short Nasdaq ETF token, might be a more direct risk management approach.

If an investor judges that subsequent data like non-farm payrolls and inflation will weaken, leading the Fed to release new easing signals, allowing the tech sector to continue its oversold rebound, then going long on QQQ.M, or using the TQQQ.M triple-long Nasdaq ETF token to express higher elasticity recovery expectations, is also a viable option.

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

The market never automatically moves towards one specific asset just because of the word 'war.' What truly matters is whether investors can break down their macro judgments into tradable asset paths. For example, is it trading energy supply or falling interest rates? Is it betting on precious metal recovery or a tech stock rebound? Is it going long on deterministic cash flow amidst volatility or hedging the downside risk of high-valuation assets?

After all, in a new market environment, judging the direction is only the first step. More importantly, 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 airstrike Iran, the Supreme Leader is assassinated, the Strait of Hormuz closes, but gold falls 16%;
• Tech stocks first drop 8%, then rally 8%, forming a V-shape over two months;
• Hardly anyone dared to heavily weight energy at the start of the year, but OXY would rise nearly 40%;
• The YTD returns for the Nasdaq and gold are almost identical (+8.21% vs +9.32%), while OXY is 4 times that;

You probably wouldn't have believed 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 to stop making simple knee-jerk reactions to the keyword 'war.' Instead, it dissects the economic transmission paths of war, assesses the credibility of ceasefires, and dynamically prices the stalemate.

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

For the global investment market under Trump, every possibility is real. What we can do is not predict the next answer, but ensure we have sufficiently appropriate tools when the answer gradually emerges.

The ability to efficiently translate judgment into action is the true dividing line.