Investors see quick stock market drop if US joins Israel-Iran conflict
By Noel Randewich
(Reuters) -Financial markets may be in for a "knee-jerk" selloff if the U.S. military attacks Iran, with economists warning that a dramatic rise in oil prices could damage a global economy already strained by President Donald Trump's tariffs.
Oil prices fell nearly 2% on Wednesday as investors weighed the chance of supply disruptions from the Israel-Iran conflict and potential direct U.S. involvement. The price of crude remains up almost 9% since Israel launched attacks against Iran last Friday in a bid to cripple its ability to produce nuclear weapons.
With major U.S. stock indexes trading near record highs despite uncertainty about Trump's trade policy, some investors worry that equities may be particularly vulnerable to sources of additional global uncertainty.
Chuck Carlson, chief executive officer at Horizon Investment Services, said U.S. stocks might initially sell off should Trump order the U.S. military to become more heavily involved in the Israel-Iran conflict, but that a faster escalation might also bring the situation to an end sooner. "I could see the initial knee-jerk would be, 'this is bad'," Carlson said. "I think it will bring things to a head quicker."
Wednesday's dip in crude, along with a modest 0.3% increase in the S&P 500, came after Trump declined to answer reporters' questions about whether the U.S. was planning to strike Iran but said Iran had proposed to come for talks at the White House. Adding to uncertainty, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected Trump's demand for unconditional surrender.
U.S. Treasury yields fell as concerns over the war in Iran boosted safe haven demand for the debt.
The U.S. military is also bolstering its presence in the region, Reuters reported, further stirring speculation about U.S. intervention that investors fear could widen the conflict in an area with critical energy resources, supply chains and infrastructure.
With investors viewing the dollar as a safe haven, it has gained around 1% against both the Japanese yen and Swiss franc since last Thursday. On Wednesday, the U.S. currency took a breather, edging fractionally lower against the yen and the franc.
'I don't think personally that we are going to join this war. I think Trump is going to do everything possible to avoid it. But if it can't be avoided, then initially that's going to be negative for the markets,' said Peter Cardillo, Chief Market Economist at Spartan Capital Securities in New York. "Gold would shoot up. Yields would probably come down lower and the dollar would probably rally."
Barclays warned that crude prices could rise to $85 per barrel if Iranian exports are reduced by half, and that prices could rise about $100 in the "worst case" scenario of a wider conflagration. Brent crude was last at about $76.
Citigroup economists warned in a note on Wednesday that materially higher oil prices "would be a negative supply shock for the global economy, lowering growth and boosting inflation—creating further challenges for central banks that are already trying to navigate the risks from tariffs."
Trump taking a "heavier hand" would not be a surprise to the market, mitigating any negative asset price reaction, Carlson said, while adding that he was still not convinced that the U.S. would take a heavier role.
Trades on the Polymarket betting website point to a 63% expectation of "U.S. military action against Iran before July", down from as much as an 82% likelihood on Tuesday, but still above a 35% chance before the conflict began last Friday.
The S&P 500 energy sector index has rallied over 2% in the past four sessions, lifted by a 3.8% gain in Exxon Mobil and 5% rally in Valero Energy. That compares to a 0.7% drop in the S&P 500 over the same period, reflecting investor concerns about the impact of higher oil prices on the economy, and about growing global uncertainty generated by the conflict.
Turmoil in the Middle East comes as investors are already fretting about the effect of Trump's tariffs on the global economy.
The World Bank last week slashed its global growth forecast for 2025 by four-tenths of a percentage point to 2.3%, saying that higher tariffs and heightened uncertainty posed a "significant headwind" for nearly all economies.
Defense stocks, already lifted by Russia's conflict with Ukraine, have made modest gains since Israel launched its attacks. The S&P 500 Aerospace and Defense index hit record highs early last week in the culmination of a rebound of over 30% from losses in the wake of Trump's April 2 "Liberation Day" tariff announcements.
Even after the latest geopolitical uncertainty, the S&P 500 remains just 2% below its February record high close.
"Investors want to be able to look past this, and until we see reasons to believe that this is going to be a much larger regional conflict with the U.S. perhaps getting involved and a high chance of escalating, you're going to see the market want to shrug this off as much as it can,' Osman Ali, global co-head of Quantitative Investment Strategies, said at an investor conference on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." Why It Matters The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." What People Are Saying Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." What Happens Next Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst
By Suzanne McGee (Reuters) -As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19% from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterized by "extreme policy uncertainty." "Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios," said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything," even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6% S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. "We were out ahead of our skis," Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the "animal spirits," he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for U.S. stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to U.S. companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. "There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns." Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. UNSTABLE MARKETS "Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitized to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of" social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterized stock market rallies of the recent past. "On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally," Stefano Pascale, head of U.S. equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth - a measure of the size and number of potential orders - remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. "The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable," said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching "another point of complacency" akin to that seen in March. "There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move," Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term "Snapchat presidency" to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. "He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor," Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. "One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates." To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. "For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly'," said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wells Fargo Says To Avoid This Investment and Buy US Stocks Instead — Should You Invest?
In a recent note to investors, Wells Fargo analysts mentioned that they recommended avoiding emerging market equities right now. Trending Now: Read Next: Since the massive bank holds a weighty opinion, it's worth digging into their suggestion. GOBankingRates unpacks Wells Fargo's recommendation and what that means for your portfolio. Investing in emerging markets allows investors to diversify their portfolio beyond U.S. stocks. While you can target specific emerging markets, like India or Indonesia, opting to purchase an index fund focused on a broad swath of emerging markets can give you some exposure across multiple economies with minimal effort on your part. For example, the MSCI Emerging Markets index offers a popular way for U.S.-based investors to add exposure to emerging markets to their portfolio. In the last year, the MSCI Emerging Market Index saw a net return of 13.04%, which is significantly higher than the S&P 500, which saw a slight decline. While you might think that the outperformance of the MSCI Emerging Market Index over the S&P 500 would warrant investing more heavily in emerging markets, the opposite is true in Wells Fargo's opinion. Since the MSCI Emerging Market Index did so well in the last year, the analysts recognize that many investors who had invested in emerging markets will have seen their portfolio's composition change over the last year, with perhaps more weight in emerging markets than they would like. Explore More: The possible portfolio imbalance, with too much money invested in emerging markets and not enough in U.S. stocks, could represent a problem for some investors. Additionally, Wells Fargo remains unconvinced it's a good idea to stay so heavily weighted in favor of emerging markets. The note pointed to the structural risks of emerging markets, including 'political and economic instability, corporate governance concerns, variable regulatory risks, as well as China's excessive debt, slumping property sector, and slowing growth.' All of this to say, Wells Fargo's note encouraged investors to rebalance their portfolios more heavily toward U.S. stocks instead of emerging markets. In the statement, Wells Fargo said, 'we favor reallocating to U.S. Large Cap, U.S. Mid Cap, or Developed Market (DM) ex-U.S. Equities to maintain overall equity exposure.' Investors heavily weighted toward emerging markets might sell off some of those investments in order to purchase U.S. stocks. For example, you might sell some of your stake in the MSCI Emerging Markets index in order to buy more in a fund tied to the S&P 500. If building and managing your own investment portfolio, the right strategy varies based on your interests, skill level and time commitment. For investors with significant time and the patience to monitor the constant turns of the stock market, actively managing it could be a good idea. But if you are looking for a more hands-off approach with a long-term vision in mind, consider buying and holding low-cost index funds. As you buy and hold index funds for the long term, you can make big-picture changes to your portfolio, like adjusting toward or away from emerging markets occasionally. But, in general, you'll allow the investments to hopefully grow in value over the long term. Wells Fargo is suggesting that investors shift away from emerging markets toward U.S. stocks. For some investors, the shift could make sense. For others, following through on this change wouldn't align with their investment goals. Take the time to decide what's best for your situation before making any changes to your portfolio. More From GOBankingRates 10 Cars That Outlast the Average Vehicle This article originally appeared on Wells Fargo Says To Avoid This Investment and Buy US Stocks Instead — Should You Invest? Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio
