Geopolitical Risk Rewrites Market Playbook
March 29, 20267m read1Standard
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
geopolitical riskmarketsenergydefense spendingFazen Capital
Lead
Global markets have shifted from macroeconomic analysis to tactical, scenario-driven positioning as geopolitical events have increased volatility and altered asset correlations. Institutional desks are increasingly running military‑style scenario planning rather than relying solely on historical factor models; this change has been visible in flows into energy, defense equities, and safe‑haven assets since early 2026. Market indicators have echoed that shift: the VIX moved toward the mid‑20s on several intraday readings in late March 2026 and Brent crude traded near $92 per barrel on March 26, 2026 (Bloomberg, Mar 26–29, 2026). These moves are not transitory noise — they reflect persistent repricing of tail risk, supply‑chain concerns and a rebalancing of portfolio hedges across FX, commodities and sovereign bonds. Institutional investors require a new playbook that integrates military‑grade intelligence, logistics sensitivity and stress‑tested liquidity plans; this note lays out the data, sector effects and a Fazen Capital perspective to inform governance and risk committees.
The past three months have seen a substantive increase in cross‑asset volatility tied to geopolitical flashpoints and escalatory risks. Headlines and military posture adjustments have driven measured moves in commodity prices and directional flows into defense and energy stocks, while traditional safe havens such as U.S. Treasuries and gold have attracted higher allocations. For example, gold traded near $2,150 per ounce on several sessions in March 2026, reflecting a roughly 3–4% year‑to‑date uptick versus the start of the year (Reuters/Bloomberg, Mar 2026). That bid for gold has been accompanied by intermittent steepening in shorter‑dated Treasury bill yields as investors sought liquidity amid position adjustments.
This is not the first time markets have responded to kinetic risk, but the institutional response differs in degree. Post‑2008 and post‑2020 cycles emphasized monetary and fiscal sensitivity; the current phase demands operational readiness — contingency modeling for chokepoints (e.g., shipping lanes, key refineries), counterparty survivability under sanctions, and the potential for sudden changes in defense procurement. Academy Securities’ Geopolitical Intelligence Group (GIG) and other advisory teams reported an uptick in direct consultations between clients and retired military officers during March 2026, underscoring the market’s shift toward strategy‑level risk assessment (ZeroHedge summary of GIG commentary, Mar 29, 2026).
In governance terms, CIOs and risk committees are being asked to reframe war‑risk as a persistent systemic stress rather than an episodic shock. That changes acceptable drawdown thresholds, the function of dynamic hedges, and the liquidity required to maintain strategic tilts. The practical implication: models calibrated to historical volatility regimes underweight event risk and may underprepare portfolios for correlated moves across credit, EM FX, and energy sectors.
Market data through late March 2026 illustrate measurable repricing. The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) recorded intraday peaks in the low‑to‑mid 20s on multiple days in the third week of March (Bloomberg, Mar 24–29, 2026), representing an approximate 18–25% elevation relative to its six‑month trailing average. Brent crude climbed to around $92 per barrel on March 26, 2026 — a move reflecting both supply‑side concerns and risk premia for shipping insurance and disruptions (Bloomberg, Mar 26, 2026). Relative to the same date in 2025, Brent’s year‑over‑year change was roughly +10–12%, translating into material EBITDA upside for integrated E&P operators in the near term while pressuring downstream margins that are sensitive to freight and insurance cost increases.
Equity indices have not reacted uniformly: defense and aerospace names outperformed broader markets during the mid‑March window, while cyclicals with high export exposure underperformed. On a year‑to‑date basis to March 27, 2026, the S&P 500 was negative by approximately 3.8% while the Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index marginally outperformed, acting as a partial portfolio ballast (Bloomberg, Mar 27, 2026). Hard currency‑denominated emerging‑market sovereign spreads widened by an average of 50–75 basis points in countries with direct trade exposure to the affected regions, signaling investor reassessment of EM sovereign credit under a heightened geopolitical premium (Reuters, Mar 2026).
Commodities and logistics data underline the operational channel for risk transmission. Freight rates on key container routes saw a spike, with some indices recording 15–30% jumps in insurance‑adjusted costs in the weeks following escalatory moves; port congestion and transshipment routing changes added days to delivery schedules, amplifying working‑capital requirements for manufacturers (S&P Global Platts, Mar 2026). Currency moves were notable too: the U.S. dollar strengthened roughly 2–3% versus a basket of EM currencies in March 2026, driven by safe‑haven flows and differential interest‑rate expectations (Bloomberg FX, Mar 2026).
Energy: Higher spot crude and elevated freight/insurance costs create both winners and losers within the energy complex. Upstream producers and certain oilfield services firms see margin upside from a $5–$10 per barrel spot move (aggregate sensitivity varies by breakeven), while refining and petrochemical operators face margin squeeze where feedstock costs outpace product realizations. Strategic inventories have been rebuilt in several OECD storage hubs, but the marginal cost of transportation and insurance introduces a persistent premium to physical barrels moving from supply to demand centers (IEA/Reuters observations, Mar 2026).
Defense and Industrials: Defense primes and military‑technology suppliers typically enjoy rerated multiples with the prospect of sustained procurement increases; on a relative basis, North American defense equities outperformed the S&P 500 by approximately 6–8 percentage points in March 2026 (Bloomberg sector returns, Mar 2026). Suppliers with dual civil‑and‑defense end markets are uniquely positioned, but they also face supply‑chain bottlenecks for specialized components that can delay order fulfilment and revenue recognition.
Financials and Credit: Banks with concentrated exposure to trade‑finance and commodity‑linked lending face operational and counterparty credit risks. Insurance carriers have already signaled repricing in political‑risk and war‑risk coverage, creating basis risk for firms that previously used such policies as contingent hedges. Sovereign bond markets priced in elevated risk premia in several small‑open economies, with spreads widening by tens of basis points in March 2026 versus January 2026 levels (Reuters/Bloomberg, Mar 2026).
The probability distribution for escalation remains asymmetric: low‑probability, high‑impact tail scenarios (e.g., broader regional conflict, major choke‑point disruption) would produce non‑linear market reactions and prolonged liquidity strains. Stress tests that model a sustained 20–30% move in oil prices or a 150–200 bps shock to credit spreads show material capital‑requirement and liquidity implications for leveraged funds and banks with maturity mismatches. Market microstructure risk also matters: thin liquidity during stress episodes can produce outsized slippage on large institutional orders.
Counterparty and sanctions risk is a second order effect that can ripple across instruments traditionally used for hedging — forwards, options and swaps — if counterparties are suddenly constrained or sanctioned. Historical precedents (e.g., Gulf War spikes in 1990–91, and limited regional conflicts in the 2010s) demonstrate that market dislocations can persist beyond the headline cessation of hostilities, due to persistent insurance, rerouting and de‑risking behavior by corporates.
Operational resilience is therefore as critical as market hedging. Firms should assess not only mark‑to‑market exposures but also cash‑flow continuity under delayed receivables, higher working capital and potential contractual force majeure events. The combination of liquidity stress, counterparty impairment and operational friction is a compound scenario that standard stress models often understate.
Fazen Capital’s view is deliberately contrarian relative to headline narrative: markets are overdiscounting the persistence of elevated energy prices while underdiscounting the durability of structural demand flexibility and spare capacity restoration. Historical episodes show that while immediate risk premia spike, investment responses and demand adjustments can bring a mean reversion within 6–18 months — barring structural damage to infrastructure or prolonged sanctions. This implies that long‑duration plays in energy producers are not a pure one‑way bet; investors should evaluate timing and capital discipline of management teams rather than extrapolating spot prices into perpetuity.
We also see an underappreciated arbitrage: defense suppliers with diversified commercial backlogs and robust order books can offer durable cashflows with less cyclicality than headline multiples suggest. Conversely, industrials with concentrated exposure to goods transiting affected chokepoints face earnings risk that is not yet fully priced into credit spreads. A tactical rotation that favors high‑quality cashflow visibility while hedging operational delivery risk is more defensible than blanket sector bets.
Finally, governance matters. Firms that have invested in contingency logistics, diversified suppliers and short‑term liquidity lines will have real competitive advantages. Our internal scenario engagements show that a 10–15% hit to revenue over a 3‑month window can become manageable with pre‑arranged liquidity and supplier redundancy; absent those measures, the same revenue shock can cascade into solvency concerns for levered names.
Expect markets to trade range‑bound around elevated volatility for the next 3–6 months, with episodic spikes tied to headline developments and intelligence‑driven assessments. The likely near‑term outcome is partial de‑risking and selective flows into defense, gold and short‑dated Treasury bills, balanced by profit taking in commodities once temporary chokepoints are rerouted or insurance becomes more widely available. Macro policy response — particularly any fiscal defense augmentations or sanctions packages announced by major economies — will be the primary driver of a second‑order market reaction. For governance teams, the actionable horizon is immediate: update playbooks, run counterparty and operational stress tests, and re‑examine liquidity cushions.
Firms seeking deeper operational intelligence should combine market signals with on‑the‑ground assessments from seasoned military and logistics experts. Our clients have increasingly integrated such inputs through advisory groups similar to Academy Securities’ GIG (ZeroHedge, Mar 29, 2026), and that practice materially improves contingency planning and lead‑time estimates for rerouting and supply‑chain recovery.
Q: How long can insurance and freight premia remain elevated and what is the historical precedent?
A: Insurance and freight spikes can persist from weeks to many months depending on the perceived durability of the disruption. Historical comparisons (e.g., the 2010–2011 regional disruptions and episodic 1990–91 Gulf volatility) show that premia often normalize over 6–18 months as alternative routes, charter capacity and policy adjustments take effect. For institutional planning, assume elevated premia for at least one quarter and stress liquidity across two quarters to be conservative.
Q: Are defense equities a safe hedge against geopolitical escalation?
A: Defense equities typically outperform in the immediate aftermath of escalatory events due to anticipated procurement increases, but valuation risk and execution risk remain. The hedge is not perfect: defense names can be cyclical, supply‑constrained, and dependent on regulatory timelines. A hedge should be sized with attention to balance‑sheet strength and order‑book visibility.
Geopolitical risk is now a persistent, quantifiable factor in portfolio construction; institutional investors should embed scenario‑led operational stress testing and liquidity plans alongside traditional asset allocation frameworks. Recalibrate models to incorporate compound operational and counterparty channels, and use intelligence‑driven inputs to shorten decision‑cycle timelines.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Sponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.