Geopolitical unrest: Assessing market implications

Tensions in the Middle East escalated this weekend as Iran carried out a response attack on Israel. While it feels difficult to do so during times like these, our job as investors is to assess what impact the conflict might have on the global economy and financial markets, and then determine if we need to change the advice we are giving about portfolios.

The message: Risks are higher than before this weekend, but so far, these events do not derail our constructive view for the year ahead. There may be volatility as investors wait to learn more, but, in our opinion, the nature of the actions taken thus far seem designed to avoid material escalation. The market reaction has also been muted as trading starts today.

This is not the first time geopolitical turmoil has been the catalyst of turbulence for investors. In the end, staying invested in a diversified, goals-aligned portfolio has benefited through countless geopolitical crises, wars, pandemics and recessions – and we believe that should remain true.

What happened

Iran carried out a major retaliatory drone and missile attack against Israel over the weekend. Almost all were intercepted before they reached Israeli airspace, with the joint help of the U.S., UK, France and Jordan.

The event marks a clear escalation of tensions in the region, but it’s worth noting that Iran’s attack seemed designed to avoid further escalation while still demonstrating its resolve. The White House and European officials have urged Israel to show restraint, and President Biden has reportedly stressed to Israeli PM Netanyahu that the U.S. will not assist with or support any offensive operations against Iran.

In all, the geopolitical backdrop remains uncertain and carries more risk than it did before, but so far, there appear to be arguments against a wider conflict.

What we’re watching

Nerves seem tempered for now on Iran’s statement that the “matter can be concluded,” but the world is watching to see how Israel responds. If Israel doesn’t escalate, and the conflict remains contained, global investors are likely to revert to the status quo, with the economic cycle in the driver’s seat and geopolitics a tail risk. But if the conflict escalates into one with a larger geo-economic footprint (particularly through involvement of more parties or a closure of the Strait of Hormuz), more careful analysis is required.

To do that, we are watching three main areas: 1) the impact on natural resources, 2) the effect on the economy (especially inflation), and 3) the follow through into price action.

1) Impact on natural resources. The gist: Iran itself is a smaller oil supplier, but the potential for conflict spillover into the broader region and/or disruption of significant transit routes like the Strait of Hormuz pose greater risk. Oil prices are likely to reflect some of these risks with a geopolitical risk premium in the coming months, but we think we’d need to see meaningful escalation to see a pronounced spike to 2022 highs of $125/barrel from today’s $90/barrel.

However, two risks stand out:

• The risk of a broader conflict. The Middle East as a whole accounts for roughly a third of global oil production. Should others in the region start to take sides, the energy supply picture could look more difficult.
• The risk of transit disruption. Here, the Strait of Hormuz sees almost 20% of global oil supply and a significant amount of all shipping volumes. Iran’s geographic proximity to the channel poses a risk of immobilizing supply with a global impact.

To us, both risks appear contained for now. The U.S. has been clearly against an Israeli counter-offensive, which seems to reduce risk of retaliation and escalation. Iran’s own reliance on the Strait of Hormuz also makes its closure seem less likely – with severe consequences for its already struggling economy, as well as for Arab Gulf states broadly and China (Iran’s largest trading partner).

If we see a pronounced disruption, it’s worth noting that such events would likely prompt some oil producers (especially from the U.S.) to bring additional supply online and mitigate some (but certainly not all) of the impact. Higher prices would likewise deter consumers, leading to demand destruction – we’ve already seen evidence of this as oil began its climb in late January. Those combined dynamics could, in part, counteract a geopolitics-driven surge.

2) The effect on the economy – especially inflation. The next logical question is what a surge in energy costs could mean for inflation. And with central bank rate cuts already a debate, what might that mean for monetary policy?

Drawing on our recent analysis of inflation, the pass-through effect of higher energy costs into consumer prices differs across regions. In North America – where economies are predominantly energy independent today – the potential impact appears less severe. Our analysis, which uses data back to 2000, implies that a surge in oil prices to their $125/barrel peak would result in a less than 1%pt spike to “non-energy” inflation. When it comes to growth, some comfort might also come from the fact that the U.S. is less energy intensive than it used to be: compared to the early 1970s, it now takes over 70% less oil to generate one unit of GDP. In Europe, the inflation and growth impacts would likely be bigger.

Outside of energy prices, obstruction to global supply chains via the Strait of Hormuz could add pressure to goods prices (which have been deflating over the course of the last year) as companies try to pass on higher input costs (like shipping and air cargo prices).

Central bankers would need to balance such upside inflation risks with the potential growth headwinds. That would be tricky to navigate, but so long as there is not a genuine reversal of disinflationary trends, we don’t think policymakers would be forced to return to rate hikes.

3) The follow-through into price action.

So far, the market moves have been muted. That may be as media headlines telegraphing a potential attack started on Friday, with investors already gearing up. As Monday trading begins, oil prices have moved moderately lower off last week’s spike above $90/barrel, bond yields are largely unchanged, and European stocks have even opened in the green.

Outside of the immediate market reaction, it’s worth noting that the nations at the center of this weekend’s events represent a small proportion of the global stock market: Israeli shares account for just 0.18% of the MSCI All-Country World Index, and the Middle East as a whole is 1%. Disruption in these economies alone also doesn’t seem a hindrance to earnings: S&P 500 companies derive just 0.2% of their revenues from Israel.

The risk, of course, is again more meaningful escalation that leads to inflation volatility and macro uncertainty that upends sentiment and business investment. But the fundamental backdrop for investors remains unchanged with the situation as it stands.

Investment considerations: Geopolitical threats are important for investors to consider and prepare for – a key point made in our CEO Jamie Dimon’s 2023 Annual Shareholder Letter. Already, economies are reorienting supply chains and increasing defense spending to bolster their security.

As we look forward, no one has a crystal ball – but history has taught us a few lessons on navigating events such as these. Drawing on the seminal work of Michael Cembalest (AWM Chairman of Market & Investment Strategy), the business cycle mattered more for investors in the majority of the geopolitical events in post-war history he examined. That means that, barring a major economic disruption or imbalance like we outlined above, the effect of geopolitics on markets has tended to be short-lived. The key message: Staying invested in a diversified, goals-aligned portfolio has paid off through countless geopolitical crises, wars, pandemics and recessions and will likely continue to do so.

In his analysis, the 1973 Arab-Israeli War was one of the notable exceptions, as an OPEC oil embargo led to a surge in oil prices, high inflation, an economic recession and a prolonged rout in stock markets. So far, there isn’t evidence of similar actions being taken today. The world is also very different today than it was then: the U.S. now produces more oil than it consumes, and energy makes up roughly half as much of the average American’s spending than it did back then (4% today vs. ~8% in the 1970s). That means the inflationary impact of a potential escalation now would likely be more contained versus that episode.