March sixteenth, twenty twenty-six
“From Hormuz to Growth Damage: The Market Is Gradually Realizing This Isn’t Just an Oil Shock” “From Hormuz to Growth Damage: The Market Is Slowly Realizing This Is More Than Just an Oil Price Shock”
By Ariston
“See the pinned post in the community for details on how to add me as a friend.”
What is easiest to see in this market cycle is oil prices, gold, energy stocks, and risk aversion. But if we look at several of the latest macroeconomic, energy, mining, and technology materials together, the truly important change is not these price movements that are immediately visible. Rather, the market is moving from “phase one” to “phase two.”
In phase one, people viewed this as a typical geopolitical shock: oil prices rose, front-end interest rates rose, energy stocks benefited, and risk assets came under pressure. Phase two is much more complex. As long as actual traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains depressed for an extended period, the problem is no longer just more expensive energy. Global inputs start to become scarce, inventories are run down involuntarily, and companies begin to make more cautious production decisions, ultimately feeding through into growth damage.
I think this is where the market’s central tension lies right now.
Many assets are still priced as if the conflict will end quickly, but an increasing number of studies are beginning to take the question one step further: if this is not a brief spike in oil prices but a supply disruption lasting several weeks or even longer, which assets are still mistakenly trading phase one, and which are truly pricing in phase two ahead of time? Thinking through this sequence will be more useful for the allocation approach that follows than simply debating whether oil can reach 100, 120, or even 150.
I.The channel matters more than oil prices
Let’s put the issue plainly. What really determines the scale of this shock is not the headlines from the Middle East themselves, but whether the passage has resumed. If the Strait of Hormuz remains, in practice, partly closed or even close to a standstill for an extended period, the market is facing not simply “higher prices,” but the fact that many key commodities cannot get through at all. Crude oil, natural gas, fertilizer, liquefied petroleum gas, and some industrial gases are not marginal items that can easily be ignored. Especially when corporate inventories are already low and global supply chains have been streamlined as much as possible, a four-week disruption is not a short period.
That is also why recent changes in the oil futures curve are more worth watching than the price on any single day.
What is truly concerning is not a brief jump in the front-month contract, but the marked rise in prices further out on the curve as well. This indicates that the market is beginning to accept the possibility that this shock will not automatically fade after a few days, and will take longer to repair.
Once that view takes hold, the macroeconomic question will gradually shift from “will headline inflation be higher?” to “will the real economy have to start revising its plans because of shortages and high costs?”
These are not remotely the same in scale. The former is still a price problem; the latter is already a problem of output:
Figure 1: Oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has nearly fallen to zero, and the market is already facing a de facto transport disruption
II.Phase one is an inflation shock; phase two is the growth shock
The market has, in fact, already priced in phase one to a considerable degree. The clearest example is the initial rise in front-end interest rates, especially in Europe. The logic is easy to understand: higher energy prices push up headline inflation, making it harder for central banks to cut rates in the short term, with the possibility of rate hikes even coming back into discussion.
The question is that the further the market moves in this direction, the more it needs to ask itself a more important one: is this a rerun of the prolonged stagflation of 2022, or a shock that shifts more quickly from a short-term inflation disturbance to growth pressures?
I lean more toward the latter.
The reason is not that energy is unimportant, but that the transmission chain of this shock is more tilted toward growth than many people think.
If a company is simply paying a little more for fuel, then of course this is still an inflation issue. But if transport disruptions persist, supplies of upstream raw materials and intermediate goods start to tighten, and end demand is suppressed by high energy costs, companies will ultimately face both rising costs and downward revisions to sales. What will then be repriced is earnings and capital expenditure, not merely inflation expectations.
This is also the most thought-provoking aspect of recent performance across bonds, equities and investment styles: on one side, interest rates are first pricing in more hawkish central banks; on the other, the market is already differentiating among stocks based on lower growth expectations. Cyclical stocks underperforming defensive stocks suggests that equity markets no longer view this entirely as a short-term oil-price fluctuation, but are beginning to contemplate weaker economic activity.The only problem is that this view is not yet sufficiently consistent, so there are still pronounced dislocations across many sectors.
Figure 2: Even as short-term rates price in a more hawkish outlook, equities are already marking down their implied pricing of economic growth
Three, The repricing of styles and sectors is the part that is still unfinished
Looking at the impact of this shock across sectors, what is most interesting is not energy itself, but which sectors the market is redefining and which it has not yet repriced.
Mining is a typical example. For some time, many portfolios have treated mining as a relatively safe area: it can benefit from support for resource prices while also avoiding some of the concerns about excessive valuations in AI trades. But this logic depends on one condition: resource prices must rise mainly because of supply constraints, rather than a collapse in demand. If the conflict ultimately develops into broader damage to growth, mining will face not “more expensive commodities” but “more cautious buyers, faster destocking, and weaker end demand.”Metal prices are particularly vulnerable in this situation because they depend on both supply and confidence.
This also explains why disagreement over mining has suddenly widened recently.
On one side, some are still talking about the long-term stories for copper, iron ore and electrification; on the other, others have begun discussing more direct demand destruction. The latter view may sound uncomfortable right now, but that does not mean it is unreasonable. Especially after mining stocks have already risen considerably over nearly the past year, the risk-reward balance is not in favor of the bulls if they now have to weather another downward revision to global growth expectations.
In other words, the real danger is not simply being bearish on commodities, but that many investors still treat mining as a “relatively safe asset amid the conflict,” when it is actually a sector highly sensitive to the second phase.
Figure 3: After their previous rally, mining stocks are nearing levels where fatigue has historically tended to emerge, leaving them especially sensitive to downward growth revisions
The UK housing chain stands in contrast.
This sector has been hit hard recently, but its problem is precisely that its decline looks too much like a long-term shock, making it inconsistent with the market’s current pricing of energy stocks. If the performance of energy stocks implies that “the conflict will eventually pass, and excess profits are temporary,” then the current decline in UK housing—a domestic interest-rate-sensitive asset with a third- or fourth-order exposure to the effects—looks somewhat excessive.
The contradiction here is striking: in some areas, the market assumes the shock will end quickly, while in others it is cutting valuations on the basis of lasting damage. This style dislocation itself shows that the overall repricing is not yet complete.
Technology and semiconductors are a different case. They have not entirely avoided volatility, but overall they have been clearly more resilient than many traditional cyclical assets. The main reason is not that the market has suddenly stopped worrying about the macroeconomy, but that the AI capital-expenditure theme remains sufficiently robust for now to offset some growth concerns at the margin.
Hardware, optical modules, parts of the memory sector and the copper interconnect chain are still attracting buyers. This essentially reflects one thing: as long as the AI investment train is not derailed, technology remains a relative growth asset that the market is willing to hold on to. For that very reason, what is really worth watching next is not whether technology can immediately reach new highs, but whether, if the shock drags on, AI spending will start to shift from being a “buffer” to becoming the “last crowded trade at elevated levels.”
Four. Positioning is beginning to chase energy, but the rotation is far from complete
If the preceding discussion concerned the transmission through fundamentals, the changes in positioning are even more direct. Over the past two weeks, energy trading has clearly shifted from skepticism to conviction.The clearest signals are increased inflows into oil-price ETF and energy-stock ETF funds, Brent net longs returning to a multi-year high, and hedge funds’ net exposure to energy rising again. This change matters because it means the market is no longer merely acknowledging supply risks passively; it is actively treating energy as an area to add to.
Figure 4: Brent net longs have returned to a multi-year high, and energy trading is shifting from skepticism toward crowded positioning
But the problem is that this positioning repair is still a long way from a full-fledged style rotation.
First, energy positioning has returned, but it is still nowhere near the same level as the widespread crowding in 2022. Second, broader portfolios have not truly shifted to a framework of “higher oil prices for longer, weaker growth, and a more defensive style.” Many funds still have energy allocations below historical extremes, and ETF weights do not appear extreme either.Put another way, the market is now adding to energy positions, but it has not completely rewritten its portfolio logic.
That is precisely what is most worth watching next.
Because if the conflict eases quickly, the energy trades that have only just been chased higher are actually the ones most vulnerable to a reflexive pullback. But if the shock drags on, sectors that have not yet completed their repricing will continue to fall behind, especially assets that seem less directly linked to oil but are in fact highly dependent on growth and confidence. That applies to mining, some industrial stocks, and some domestic cyclical sectors that are more sensitive to interest rates and household expectations.
..
Another easily overlooked detail is the redefinition of what counts as “hard-asset exposure.”
Over the past few years, when people talked about hard assets, they thought of oil, gold, copper, and mining. But in equity markets, the concept has quietly broadened.Saudi Arabia is still, of course, a way to express a view on oil, but Taiwan, China, and South Korea have also, in a sense, begun to be included in this basket, because they offer exposure to another kind of scarcity: semiconductors and AI infrastructure. If the market continues to seek allocations between “energy security” and “scarce computing power,” these two types of assets are likely to be considered side by side, rather than simply as substitutes for one another.
Five, What really matters to watch next is not how much further any one commodity can surge
So I think the most important question going forward is not how high oil prices can rise, but when the market will formally start trading the second phase...
One simple way to identify it is to see whether three things emerge at the same time:
First, deferred oil and gas prices continue to rise, rather than only near-term prices spiking; second, cyclical and resource sectors continue to underperform defensive sectors and technology; third, AI and the semiconductor supply chain, which had previously held up, also begin to show signs that “high-flying assets are no longer providing a safe haven.”
Once these three signals start to converge, the market is no longer trading inflation, but growth damage.
Figure 5: “Hard-asset exposure” in equities is being repriced, with energy and semiconductors now included in the same comparison
By region, Asia and Europe will feel this pressure sooner than the United States.The United States is less vulnerable in terms of trade routes and energy self-sufficiency, whereas Asian oil and gas importers and European regions sensitive to energy costs are more likely to be hit first. For that reason, regional divergences in foreign exchange, interest rates, and equities will become increasingly important going forward.
Not all markets are facing the same kind of shock. Some are facing import costs and currency pressure, some are facing downward revisions to growth expectations, while others can still rely on AI spending to maintain relative resilience. Reducing all of them to “rising or falling risk appetite” would be far too crude.
Ultimately, the truly dangerous part of this market cycle is not oil prices, but the fact that the market still has not fully worked out what will happen after high oil prices. The first phase is rising energy prices, the second is damage to growth, and only the third is the reshuffling of earnings and style leadership. Many trades are still stuck in the first phase, but research has already begun looking further ahead.
The real opportunities will most likely emerge when the market finally acknowledges that the second phase has arrived.
...
(End of full article)
A quick plug: the companion US stocks, A-share and Hong Kong stocks, and commodities communities are continually being improved.
US stocks:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=us-strategies(Xingzhi)
Hong Kong A:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=asia-strategies(Harbour Dragon)
Commodities:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=commodity-strategies(Earth Core)
Note: All content in this document is for reference only and does not constitute any investment advice, nor should it be taken as a basis for any laws, regulations or regulatory policies. Investors should not use or rely on this information as a basis for making decisions.