A visual guide to understanding the 30-day global asset reshuffle caused by the conflict

Since the end of February 2026, geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East have continued to escalate. Over the past 30 days, global asset classes have undergone a round of price reassessment. From soaring oil prices to the failure of gold as a safe haven, and the strengthening of the dollar with global stock markets diverging… this round of market volatility has clearly shifted away from the “rate cut expectation-driven” framework prior to the conflict, moving towards a new main line of “inflation + geopolitical risk.” This issue provides a visual summary based on publicly available data, restoring the core logic of this round of global asset repricing.

The evolution of this round of conflict is not a single-point shock, but gradually amplifies along the chain of “conflict - supply shock - inflation rise - asset repricing.”

After the conflict broke out on February 28, the navigation volume of key energy transport channels plummeted, and the market quickly shifted from “risk expectations” to “supply gap pricing.” By mid-March, the International Energy Agency warned of severe supply disruptions worldwide, coupled with attacks on Middle Eastern energy facilities, leading to a significant contraction in LNG supply and oil prices quickly breaking through the $100 mark. By late March, the Federal Reserve maintained interest rates and signaled a hawkish stance, with a strengthening dollar alongside high inflation expectations, pushing the market into a “second shock” phase.

In this process, energy supply has become the “source variable” for pricing all assets.

As the core variable of this round of conflict, oil prices have become the “pricing anchor” for global assets.

Data shows that Brent crude oil prices rose from about $66/barrel before the conflict to a peak of $109.78/barrel, with a cumulative increase of over 58%. Unlike historically demand-driven increases, the essence of this round of oil price rise is supply constraints, which has a more direct and stronger transmission to inflation.

This means that the rise in oil prices this time is not just a commodity market trend, but a “trigger” for macro variables — directly altering interest rate path expectations and suppressing the valuations of risk assets.

Contrary to the traditional perception of “buying gold in chaotic times,” gold has shown significant weakness in this round of conflict. COMEX gold has experienced a maximum decline of over 18%.

The core reasons are twofold: first, the strengthening dollar index has exerted price pressure on gold; second, rising inflation expectations have driven up the interest rate central tendency, increasing the holding cost of gold.

When “high inflation” and “high interest rate expectations” coexist, the safe-haven properties of gold are weakened. This change indicates that a singular safe-haven logic is no longer sufficient to explain the current market, necessitating the introduction of the “policy cycle” variable for joint analysis.

Against the backdrop of declining global risk appetite, the dollar index has strengthened significantly, but there have also been structural changes in the currency market.

On one hand, the dollar’s strength stems from the resonance of safe-haven demand and “later rate cut” expectations; on the other hand, the renminbi has shown strong resilience, with its depreciation significantly smaller than the dollar’s appreciation.

This phenomenon implies that the “atypical safe-haven” characteristics of renminbi assets in global asset allocation are beginning to emerge, supported by stable fundamentals, improved capital flows, and increased asset attractiveness.

Since the outbreak of the conflict, global stock markets have exhibited a pattern of divergence.

European and Japanese markets have seen the largest declines, with the German DAX, French CAC40, and Nikkei 225 indices all undergoing significant adjustments; while U.S. stocks have performed relatively steadily, and A-shares have shown some resilience.

The essence of this divergence lies in the different degrees of dependence of each economy on energy imports. Economies with higher energy dependence and greater exposure to supply shocks have seen more pronounced pressure on their stock markets. In contrast, markets with support from domestic demand or a relatively stable energy structure have shown stronger resilience to shocks.

The market pricing logic has shifted from “systemic risk (β)” to “structural differences (α).”

Traditionally, geopolitical conflicts have often favored safe-haven assets such as government bonds, but this round has seen a reversal.

The yields on 10-year U.S. and German government bonds have both risen significantly, reflecting strengthened inflation expectations and a hawkish central bank policy, with interest rate logic overshadowing safe-haven demand. Meanwhile, Chinese government bond yields have slightly declined, reflecting support from improving domestic economic expectations and asset allocation demand.

This indicates that, in the current macro environment, government bonds are no longer purely safe-haven instruments but are highly dependent on each country’s inflation and policy cycles as “interest rate assets.”

In summary, this round of conflict has brought not only short-term market volatility but also a shift in the global asset pricing logic.

In terms of asset performance ranking: inflation assets like crude oil lead the way, dollar assets strengthen, Chinese assets remain relatively stable, U.S. stocks show moderate performance, European and Japanese stock markets face pressure, while gold has become the most significant “cognitive bias” asset.

Energy prices have become the core variable, with inflation and interest rates dominating asset allocation logic.

(责任编辑：曹言言 HA008)

     【免责声明】This article only represents the author's personal views and is not related to Hexun.com. Hexun.com maintains neutrality regarding the statements and viewpoints contained in the article and provides no express or implied guarantees regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the content. Readers should only refer to it and assume all responsibilities. Email: news_center@staff.hexun.com

Report