インサイト

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

重要事項

当資料は情報提供を目的として、Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.が作成した英文資料、もしくはその英文資料をロベコ・ジャパン株式会社が翻訳したものです。資料中の個別の金融商品の売買の勧誘や推奨等を目的とするものではありません。記載された情報は十分信頼できるものであると考えておりますが、その正確性、完全性を保証するものではありません。意見や見通しはあくまで作成日における弊社の判断に基づくものであり、今後予告なしに変更されることがあります。運用状況、市場動向、意見等は、過去の一時点あるいは過去の一定期間についてのものであり、過去の実績は将来の運用成果を保証または示唆するものではありません。また、記載された投資方針・戦略等は全ての投資家の皆様に適合するとは限りません。当資料は法律、税務、会計面での助言の提供を意図するものではありません。 ご契約に際しては、必要に応じ専門家にご相談の上、最終的なご判断はお客様ご自身でなさるようお願い致します。 運用を行う資産の評価額は、組入有価証券等の価格、金融市場の相場や金利等の変動、及び組入有価証券の発行体の財務状況による信用力等の影響を受けて変動します。また、外貨建資産に投資する場合は為替変動の影響も受けます。運用によって生じた損益は、全て投資家の皆様に帰属します。したがって投資元本や一定の運用成果が保証されているものではなく、投資元本を上回る損失を被ることがあります。弊社が行う金融商品取引業に係る手数料または報酬は、締結される契約の種類や契約資産額により異なるため、当資料において記載せず別途ご提示させて頂く場合があります。具体的な手数料または報酬の金額・計算方法につきましては弊社担当者へお問合せください。 当資料及び記載されている情報、商品に関する権利は弊社に帰属します。したがって、弊社の書面による同意なくしてその全部もしくは一部を複製またはその他の方法で配布することはご遠慮ください。 商号等: ロベコ・ジャパン株式会社  金融商品取引業者 関東財務局長(金商)第2780号 加入協会: 一般社団法人 日本投資顧問業協会

重要なお知らせ 当社や当社役職員を装ったSNSアカウントやウェブサイト等を使った投資勧誘にご注意ください さらに表示