Insight

Middle East conflict: Market commentary (week of March 9)

Welcome to the second part of our blog with in-depth analysis and reactions as the impact of the conflict in the Middle East continues to unfold. This is an evolving situation carrying a great deal of uncertainty as the extent and duration of the conflict is yet unknown. Our aim is to keep you informed of our views as events develop.

MONDAY, MARCH 9

  • 15:30 CET

    Multi-Asset: Winners and losers in the energy shock

    By Peter van der Welle, Multi-Asset Strategist

    The appointment of Khamenei’s son as the new Iranian leader and the prospect of a prolonged conflict delivered a major shift for oil markets. The 32% jump in oil prices so far since the Middle East turmoil erupted also exposes the fault lines in the global energy system. Oil prices typically spike as market participants demand a very large premium to insure against unexpected declines in oil spare capacity. Selmi et al. (2020* ) find that the use of spare capacity reduces the initial reaction of oil prices only moderately. The oil market wants to have more certainty that the Iranian conflict will remain limited in scope (no further attacks of Iranian proxies on refineries) and duration (weeks). However, as things stand, the market may not get what it wants even as talks about a release of strategic reserves among G10 members are underway.

    Beyond import reliance: broader measures of energy vulnerability
    As oil prices likely remain elevated near term, net energy exporters like the US and Norway have seen their currencies appreciate while currencies of net energy importers like Korea and the Eurozone remain under pressure. Net energy import dependency remains a useful compass to assess the fault lines. Looking at net energy imports as a percentage of domestic energy use, Japan (87%), the Netherlands (87%), Korea (85%), Italy (80%) and Spain (77%) sit at the more exposed end of the spectrum, while the US (9%), Brazil (14%), Australia (214%) and especially Norway (704%) remain structurally shielded.

    Substantial cross-country variation in energy import dependencies

    Source: LSEG Datastream, Robeco, March 2025.

    Yet, unconditional import reliance does not paint the full picture of cross-regional dispersion in energy dependency. Financial markets now also have to scrutinize the energy intensity of economies, the degree of energy import substitutability (via renewables), oil subsidy levels and the pace of inflation pass-through from energy import prices to end users to assess the implications for fiscal as well as monetary policy.

    Renewable energy: buffer or bottleneck?
    Economies with high renewable energy shares should, in theory, buffer external oil shocks. Renewable energy shares in major European economies have risen considerably in recent years (Germany now services around 25% of its energy use from renewables). Yet, renewable output only offsets fossil demand if grids can absorb and distribute it. Grid congestion and curtailment continue to inhibit substitution, forcing reliance on fossil backup when renewable generation peaks cannot be utilized. The result is a lingering vulnerability despite ambitious renewable build-out.

    Regional winners and losers in the energy shock
    Regionally, the asymmetry in relative terms of trade is clear. Asia is most directly at risk, as at the time of writing the Strait of Hormuz remains virtually closed and 83% of oil transiting the Strait of Hormuz is flowing toward Asian buyers. Europe comes next, constrained by limited substitutability and swift pass-through rates to end users. Australia, Norway and the US remain relative winners, supported by domestic production, low energy intensity (the US manufacturing share of GDP has steadily declined in recent decades), and the potential for shale drillers’ responsiveness if higher prices persist.

    *Selmi, R., Bouoiyour, J., & Miftah, A. (2020). Oil price jumps and the uncertainty of oil supplies in a geopolitical perspective: The role of OPEC’s spare capacity. International Economics, 164, 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2020.06.004

Middle East conflict: Market commentary

Key contributors

  • Client Portfolio Manager
  • Portfolio Manager
  • Client Portfolio Manager

    Meena Santhosh

  • Head of Quant Client Portfolio Management
  • Strategist, Investment Solutions
  • Client Portfolio Manager
  • Head of Asia-Pacific Equities
  • Head of Multi Asset & Equity Solutions, Co-Head Investment Solutions
  • Strategist
  • Portfolio Manager and Co-Head of Robeco’s Global Equity team
  • Client Portfolio Manager

Let's keep the conversation going

Robeco is an international asset manager offering an extensive range of active investments, from equities to bonds.

Read more

Robeco aims to enable its clients to achieve their financial and sustainability goals by providing superior investment returns and solutions.

Important information: This website is prepared and issued in Australia by Robeco Hong Kong Limited (ARBN 156 512 659) (‘Robeco’) which is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) pursuant to ASIC Class Order 03/1103. Robeco is regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission under the laws of Hong Kong and those laws may differ from Australian laws. The information on this web page is provided to you because Robeco reasonably believes that you are a "wholesale client" within the meaning of that term under section 761G(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("Corporations Act") and not any other class of persons. This information is not an advertisement and is not intended to induce retail clients to acquire Robeco products. Retail clients who are interested in Robeco products should contact their financial adviser.