60 日戰爭復盤：全球資本市場對「戰爭」的定價，真的變了？

Original Author: Frank, MSX Maitong

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

At the very start of February 28, Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei was assassinated, and the Strait of Hormuz was suddenly closed. According to market intuition formed over the past few decades, this was almost a trading formula that required little thought — War breaks out, oil prices rise, safe-haven sentiment heats up, gold surges, and tech stocks come under pressure.

But the capital markets in 2026 delivered a more complex and counterintuitive result:

Gold did not continue its rally following traditional safe-haven logic; instead, it fell sharply from its January high. The Nasdaq ETF first dropped from positive year-to-date returns into negative territory, only to recover quickly on ceasefire expectations. The true standout performer was not gold, nor copper, but US energy assets located far from the Middle East conflict zone, boasting stable production capacity and cash flow.

More paradoxically, during this period, the battlefield script — hot war, ceasefire, blockade of the strait, stalled negotiations — was rewritten repeatedly, and the capital markets' script turned just as many pages.

Looking back at this 60-day conflict, it has made the market realize that war is a pricing chain transmitted layer by layer through energy supply, inflation expectations, interest rate paths, dollar strength, and asset valuations. Within this chain, not only has the old formula "war = buy gold" failed, but the global capital market's pricing logic for "war" itself is being completely rewritten.

1. 60 Days, Three Phases

Let's first review the timeline.

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

• Hot War Shock (Feb 28 – Early April): After the US-Israel strike on Iran, Iran retaliated with missiles and drones against Israel and US-related targets. Passage through the Strait of Hormuz was obstructed, the global energy market quickly entered a state of tension, leading to a rapid rise in oil prices and a revaluation of energy stocks. Gold, however, initially fell about 20% from its January high near $5,600.
• Ceasefire Negotiations (Early April – April 21): With regional mediation advancing, expectations emerged for a ceasefire between the US and Iran and the reopening of the Strait. Risk assets began to recover. The Nasdaq ETF QQQ.M rebounded sharply from its lows. During this phase, the market was pricing in the idea that "the worst case might not happen." However, the Strait did not truly return to stable navigation, and incidents like the US blockade, Iran seizing merchant vessels, and the breakdown of talks continued to recur.
• Stalemate and Repetition (April 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 between "neither war nor peace." The market gradually recovered from its panic. The Nasdaq rebounded from a year-to-date low of -8.4% to +8.21%. Oil prices fell from above $110, but the Strait of Hormuz had still not truly reopened.

It was precisely during the tug-of-war across 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 pricing factor is how war alters energy, inflation, interest rates, and the dollar.

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

What is even more noteworthy is the ranking among assets. Sixty days ago, the market showed extreme divergence: Energy stocks surged, gold fell sharply, and the Nasdaq turned negative. Now, most assets have recovered into positive territory (especially QQQ.M), but the ranking has not 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." Instead, it begins with the energy supply shock and transmits along the chain: "oil prices → inflation → interest rates → dollar → valuations."

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

Therefore, understanding the core of this counterintuitive 60-day market performance requires breaking down the transmission chain.

After all, the most counterintuitive aspect of this market movement was gold.

With the outbreak of war, the blockade of the Strait, and surging oil prices, gold should have been the most direct safe-haven choice. However, in reality, gold did not accelerate its rise in the early stages of the conflict. Instead, it pulled back significantly from its January high. On the surface, this looks like a "failure of safe-haven assets." But if we dissect the macroeconomic transmission chain, it becomes clear that gold's performance was actually trading another aspect of the war: stronger tightening expectations.

• The first layer of transmission comes from oil prices: The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz dramatically increased uncertainty in crude oil and LNG transportation. The rise in energy prices quickly transitioned from a geopolitical premium into inflationary pressure. For the market, this meant the Federal Reserve could not easily pivot to easing and might even 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. Reuters, in a late-April report on gold's performance, also mentioned that rising oil prices pushed up inflation and interest rate expectations, thereby putting pressure on gold through dollar and yield channels.
• The third layer is the backlash from crowded trades themselves: Before the war broke out, gold had already undergone 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 arrives, funds may not necessarily add to positions but might instead choose to lock in profits. For some short-to-medium-term capital, war was not a new reason to buy gold but a window to cash out gains.

This is why the old formula "war = buy gold" proved 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 the tug-of-war between safe-haven demand and tightening pressures.

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

In contrast, the performance of the Nasdaq ETF was more like a high-volatility stress test. After the war broke out, QQQ.M fell steadily from its year-to-date positive return into negative territory. The tech sector experienced significant capital outflows, with high-valuation growth assets yielding to sectors offering energy, value, and more certain cash flows.

However, when ceasefire expectations emerged, the Nasdaq recovered quickly, turning its year-to-date return positive again. The logic behind this rebound is not mysterious either. It was primarily driven by improved ceasefire expectations, a pullback in oil prices from their highs, a marginal easing of inflationary pressures, and the market repricing the possibility of interest rate cuts, which allowed room for growth stock valuations to recover.

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

Therefore, the Nasdaq ETF's rebound looks more like a "risk appetite recovery" rather than a complete removal of macroeconomic pressures.

3. 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 located far from the conflict zone. For example, US energy giants far from the heart of the Middle East conflict, with stable production capacity, more controllable transportation routes, and more certain cash flows.

This explains why OXY.M, XOM.M, and CVX.M significantly outperformed gold ETF tokens and Nasdaq ETF tokens. The market's safe-haven logic shifted from the past pattern of "buy gold" to a new one of "buy certain 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. Today, geopolitical risks have certainly not 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 trades just the war itself; it is dissecting how the war will affect energy supply, the inflation path, interest rate expectations, dollar strength, and profit distribution within the industrial chain, ultimately repricing the risk-reward ratios of different assets.

So, for investors, the key is no longer just judging "will the war escalate," but further determining which specific channel this conflict will use to impact the market, and which tools should be used to express one's views. Choices must be more precise than ever:

• If one judges the conflict will remain a stalemate, the Strait of Hormuz passage will stay uncertain, and oil prices will remain high, then energy-related 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 flow."
• If one judges that a ceasefire will truly take hold, the Strait will gradually reopen, oil price pressures will ease, and the market will reprice rate cut expectations, then the previously pressured tech growth assets may continue their recovery. Nasdaq ETF tokens like QQQ.M would be better suited to capture the rebound in risk appetite.
• If one judges that pressure from the dollar and real interest rates is beginning to ease, then gold and silver's precious metal attributes may regain pricing room. The gold ETF token GLD.M and the silver ETF token SIVR.M could regain their upside elasticity. Silver, in particular, also has strong industrial properties related to demand from photovoltaics, electronics, and AI hardware, potentially offering higher upside resilience than gold.
• If one judges that global manufacturing, energy transition, grid upgrades, and AI data center expansion remain the longer-term themes, then the copper ETF token CPER.M acts more like a medium-to-long-term structural tool. Although copper prices can be 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 infrastructure repricing process.

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

Market divergence is equally clear regarding the Nasdaq ETF token.

If an investor judges that oil prices will remain stubbornly high, inflation stickiness will persist, and the interest rate environment will continue to suppress growth stock valuations, then shorting QQQ.M, or hedging through the 3x Short Nasdaq ETF token SQQQ.M, could be a more direct risk management approach.

If an investor judges that subsequent data like non-farm payrolls and inflation will weaken, prompting the Fed to release accommodative signals again, allowing the tech sector to sustain its oversold rebound, then going long QQQ.M, or expressing a higher resilience recovery expectation through the 3x Long Nasdaq ETF token TQQQ.M, is also a viable path.

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

The market never automatically gravitates 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, should one trade energy supply or a pullback in interest rates? Should one bet on a precious metals recovery or a tech stock rebound? Should one go long on the certain cash flow amidst volatility or hedge the downside risk of high-valuation assets?

After all, in this new market environment, determining 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 convert that judgment into an executable trading strategy?

Final Thoughts

Sixty days ago, if someone had told you:

• The US-Israel air strikes Iran, the supreme leader is assassinated, the Strait of Hormuz closes, but gold drops 16%;
• Tech stocks first fall 8%, then gain 8% back, forming a V-shape over two months;
• Almost no one dared to heavily invest in energy at the start of the year, but OXY rises nearly 40%;
• The YTD returns for the Nasdaq and gold are almost the same (+8.21% vs +9.32%), while OXY's return 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. Through this 60-day conflict, the market has learned not to make a simple conditioned response to the keyword "war." Instead, it dissects the economic transmission paths of war, assesses the credibility of ceasefires, and dynamically prices stalemates.

What we can do is not predict what the next answer will be, but ensure that when the answer arrives, we have the right tools in hand.

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

The ability to effectively convert judgment into a trade – that is the real dividing line.