A lot has happened in the span of a few weeks. Oil is, or at least was, flirting with $120 a barrel, software stocks are still nursing a deep bruise, and gold quietly crossed into record territory last year and has not looked back.
None of these things happened in isolation, and the connections between them matter more than the headlines suggest. Here is our read on what is going on and what it means for your portfolio’s strategic business wealth management.
The Iran Conflict: When Geopolitics Becomes an Energy Shock
On February 28, 2026, joint US-Israeli airstrikes launched Operation Epic Fury against Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, marking the most significant US military engagement in the Middle East in over a decade. Within 72 hours, markets had their answer: this was not a contained skirmish.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil transits daily, saw ship traffic drop by 95% in the first week of March. Iranian drone attacks followed on Saudi Aramco’s Ras Tanura export terminal and Qatari LNG facilities. Qatar declared force majeure on its gas exports.
Brent crude, which started the year near $70, briefly touched $120 before starting to retreat. US gasoline hit $3.45 nationally and looks to be heading higher.
For equity markets, the transmission mechanism is straightforward but uncomfortable: higher oil raises input costs, fans inflation, and LIKELY gives the Fed less room to cut. The Dow fell nearly 900 points intraday on March 9 before recovering. Cyclicals, airlines, and energy-intensive industrials took the first hit. Defensives, energy producers, and gold caught the bid.
The critical question right now is duration. President Trump has said the operation is “ahead of schedule” and will be over “very soon,” though Defense Secretary Hegseth simultaneously called the campaign just getting started. Iran’s IRGC has stated it is prepared to sustain at least six months of operations at this pace. Markets hate that kind of ambiguity.
History offers a useful anchor here. Most Middle East military conflicts produce sharp, short-lived equity dislocations that reverse once the scope of disruption becomes clearer. The 1991 Gulf War, the 2006 Lebanon conflict, and even the 2022 Russia-Ukraine invasion all saw equities recover well within 12 months once the oil situation stabilized.
What potentially makes the current episode different is the direct US involvement and the Strait of Hormuz closure, both of which have no clean historical precedent in the post-2000 era.
Our base case is that oil gradually eases back toward the $80 to $90 range as alternative routing and OPEC spare capacity come online. This should allow equities to absorb the shock the way they have absorbed every geopolitical shock before it: badly for a few weeks, and then with a shrug.
The tail risk is a prolonged Hormuz closure, which JP Morgan has estimated could push Brent toward $130 and materially complicate the Fed’s next move. That is not our base case, but it deserves to be in our risk framework right now, especially when engaged in robust business continuity planning.
The Software Meltdown: Overdue Correction or Structural Disruption?
Before the Iran shock grabbed the headlines, markets were already dealing with a brutal repricing in software.
What started as a slow bleed in late 2025 turned into something more dramatic in early February 2026, when Anthropic’s release of an enterprise AI platform for legal, CRM, and workflow automation triggered a full-sector selloff. In the weeks that followed, JPMorgan estimated that software and services stocks shed roughly $2 trillion in market value, the largest non-recessionary drawdown in over 30 years.
Adobe, Salesforce, and ServiceNow each fell 25% to 30% from recent highs. Palantir, which entered 2026 trading at 75 times sales, dropped over 20%. Even diversified asset managers with software-heavy credit books, including names like Blue Owl and Ares, got caught in the crossfire.
The narrative driving the selloff was AI disruption: if large language models can now automate legal drafting, CRM workflows, HR processes, and project management, what exactly are enterprise software companies selling?
It is a real question. But BofA’s Vivek Arya put it well when he noted that the selloff is built on two mutually exclusive premises. Either AI capex collapses because ROI never materializes, in which case software demand normalizes, or AI adoption is so powerful that it disrupts traditional workflows, in which case the infrastructure buildout accelerates. You cannot have both at once.
Our own read is that the selloff had two components, one legitimate and one mechanical. The legitimate piece: software stocks had gotten expensive. After the S&P 500 compounded 78% between 2023 and the end of 2025, multiples on anything with a recurring revenue model were stretched (i.e., they were expensive by almost any measure), and the AI disruption thesis gave the market a credible excuse to reprice these companies. That repricing was overdue.
The mechanical piece: this was a sentiment event, not a fundamental event. Enterprise customers are not canceling Salesforce contracts this quarter. Salesforce’s own Agentforce data shows per-customer spend doubling since initial pilots, a number that does not fit the doomsday narrative.
Morgan Stanley’s software team called the selloff a “sentiment-driven dislocation.” Wedbush’s Dan Ives went further, calling it “a generational buying opportunity in stalwart names.”
Is the recovery justified? Selectively, yes.
The companies best positioned are those with deep proprietary data moats, high switching costs, and the ability to layer AI on top of existing workflows as a margin enhancer rather than a replacement. ServiceNow and Salesforce fit that description. Pure play vertical SaaS with narrow data advantages and no pricing power does not.
The Iran-driven risk-off environment has also delayed any recovery rally, but once the energy situation stabilizes, we expect quality software names to reclaim ground quickly. The valuations, after a 30% correction against strong underlying earnings, are genuinely interesting for those preparing for a liquidity event.
Gold: The Structural Bull Case Is Intact
Gold’s 2025 performance was not subtle.
The metal rallied over 55% across the year, hit more than 50 all-time highs, briefly crossed $4,300 per ounce in October, and finished as one of the top-performing assets of the year. By any measure, it was the strongest annual return since the late 1970s.
Going into 2026, the instinctive question was whether that trade was exhausted. The answer, so far, has been no.
The current US-Iran conflict has added a fresh safe-haven halo to an already well-supported asset.
But what makes gold’s setup genuinely different from prior cycles is that this rally is not being driven by a single catalyst. The World Gold Council’s own attribution model shows the 2025 run as unusually balanced across economic uncertainty, inflation expectations, opportunity cost dynamics, and momentum, a signal that the demand is broad-based and not easily reversed.
The Structural Pillars
Central bank buying is the cornerstone of the thesis. Since 2022, central banks have purchased over 1,000 tonnes annually, more than double their 2015 to 2019 average.
The World Gold Council’s 2025 survey showed the strongest buying intentions since the survey launched, albeit that survey only began in 2019.
Emerging market central banks are leading this trend, driven by a deliberate move to reduce US dollar concentration in reserve portfolios, a dynamic that does not reverse with a ceasefire in Iran.
Crucially, gold recently surpassed US Treasuries in share of global central bank reserves for the first time since 1996.
That is not a market move. That is a structural realignment in how sovereign institutions manage geopolitical and fiscal risk. And it is still in the early innings for most emerging market central banks whose gold reserves remain well below developed market levels.
The macro setup also remains supportive. The Fed is in an easing cycle. A weaker dollar, whether driven by rate differentials or fiscal concerns around the expanding US debt load, is a direct tailwind for gold.
Bottom Line
Three themes converged in a short window:
- An active military conflict is producing a real energy shock with macro consequences that are not yet fully priced.
- A generational software selloff is largely justified by valuation excess but has overshot on fundamentals for quality names.
- And gold’s structural tailwinds, built on central bank diversification, fiscal risk, and a weaker dollar cycle, remain intact regardless of what happens in the Strait of Hormuz.
As your fiduciary financial planner, we will continue to monitor these developments closely to ensure your portfolio remains aligned with your long-term objectives.
Whew. Let’s hope we have fewer months like February the rest of the year!!!
(704) 936-0084
A lot has happened in the span of a few weeks. Oil is, or at least was, flirting with $120 a barrel, software stocks are still nursing a deep bruise, and gold quietly crossed into record territory last year and has not looked back.
None of these things happened in isolation, and the connections between them matter more than the headlines suggest. Here is our read on what is going on and what it means for your portfolio’s strategic business wealth management.
The Iran Conflict: When Geopolitics Becomes an Energy Shock
On February 28, 2026, joint US-Israeli airstrikes launched Operation Epic Fury against Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, marking the most significant US military engagement in the Middle East in over a decade. Within 72 hours, markets had their answer: this was not a contained skirmish.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil transits daily, saw ship traffic drop by 95% in the first week of March. Iranian drone attacks followed on Saudi Aramco’s Ras Tanura export terminal and Qatari LNG facilities. Qatar declared force majeure on its gas exports.
Brent crude, which started the year near $70, briefly touched $120 before starting to retreat. US gasoline hit $3.45 nationally and looks to be heading higher.
For equity markets, the transmission mechanism is straightforward but uncomfortable: higher oil raises input costs, fans inflation, and LIKELY gives the Fed less room to cut. The Dow fell nearly 900 points intraday on March 9 before recovering. Cyclicals, airlines, and energy-intensive industrials took the first hit. Defensives, energy producers, and gold caught the bid.
The critical question right now is duration. President Trump has said the operation is “ahead of schedule” and will be over “very soon,” though Defense Secretary Hegseth simultaneously called the campaign just getting started. Iran’s IRGC has stated it is prepared to sustain at least six months of operations at this pace. Markets hate that kind of ambiguity.
History offers a useful anchor here. Most Middle East military conflicts produce sharp, short-lived equity dislocations that reverse once the scope of disruption becomes clearer. The 1991 Gulf War, the 2006 Lebanon conflict, and even the 2022 Russia-Ukraine invasion all saw equities recover well within 12 months once the oil situation stabilized.
What potentially makes the current episode different is the direct US involvement and the Strait of Hormuz closure, both of which have no clean historical precedent in the post-2000 era.
Our base case is that oil gradually eases back toward the $80 to $90 range as alternative routing and OPEC spare capacity come online. This should allow equities to absorb the shock the way they have absorbed every geopolitical shock before it: badly for a few weeks, and then with a shrug.
The tail risk is a prolonged Hormuz closure, which JP Morgan has estimated could push Brent toward $130 and materially complicate the Fed’s next move. That is not our base case, but it deserves to be in our risk framework right now, especially when engaged in robust business continuity planning.
The Software Meltdown: Overdue Correction or Structural Disruption?
Before the Iran shock grabbed the headlines, markets were already dealing with a brutal repricing in software.
What started as a slow bleed in late 2025 turned into something more dramatic in early February 2026, when Anthropic’s release of an enterprise AI platform for legal, CRM, and workflow automation triggered a full-sector selloff. In the weeks that followed, JPMorgan estimated that software and services stocks shed roughly $2 trillion in market value, the largest non-recessionary drawdown in over 30 years.
Adobe, Salesforce, and ServiceNow each fell 25% to 30% from recent highs. Palantir, which entered 2026 trading at 75 times sales, dropped over 20%. Even diversified asset managers with software-heavy credit books, including names like Blue Owl and Ares, got caught in the crossfire.
The narrative driving the selloff was AI disruption: if large language models can now automate legal drafting, CRM workflows, HR processes, and project management, what exactly are enterprise software companies selling?
It is a real question. But BofA’s Vivek Arya put it well when he noted that the selloff is built on two mutually exclusive premises. Either AI capex collapses because ROI never materializes, in which case software demand normalizes, or AI adoption is so powerful that it disrupts traditional workflows, in which case the infrastructure buildout accelerates. You cannot have both at once.
Our own read is that the selloff had two components, one legitimate and one mechanical. The legitimate piece: software stocks had gotten expensive. After the S&P 500 compounded 78% between 2023 and the end of 2025, multiples on anything with a recurring revenue model were stretched (i.e., they were expensive by almost any measure), and the AI disruption thesis gave the market a credible excuse to reprice these companies. That repricing was overdue.
The mechanical piece: this was a sentiment event, not a fundamental event. Enterprise customers are not canceling Salesforce contracts this quarter. Salesforce’s own Agentforce data shows per-customer spend doubling since initial pilots, a number that does not fit the doomsday narrative.
Morgan Stanley’s software team called the selloff a “sentiment-driven dislocation.” Wedbush’s Dan Ives went further, calling it “a generational buying opportunity in stalwart names.”
Is the recovery justified? Selectively, yes.
The companies best positioned are those with deep proprietary data moats, high switching costs, and the ability to layer AI on top of existing workflows as a margin enhancer rather than a replacement. ServiceNow and Salesforce fit that description. Pure play vertical SaaS with narrow data advantages and no pricing power does not.
The Iran-driven risk-off environment has also delayed any recovery rally, but once the energy situation stabilizes, we expect quality software names to reclaim ground quickly. The valuations, after a 30% correction against strong underlying earnings, are genuinely interesting for those preparing for a liquidity event.
Gold: The Structural Bull Case Is Intact
Gold’s 2025 performance was not subtle.
The metal rallied over 55% across the year, hit more than 50 all-time highs, briefly crossed $4,300 per ounce in October, and finished as one of the top-performing assets of the year. By any measure, it was the strongest annual return since the late 1970s.
Going into 2026, the instinctive question was whether that trade was exhausted. The answer, so far, has been no.
The current US-Iran conflict has added a fresh safe-haven halo to an already well-supported asset.
But what makes gold’s setup genuinely different from prior cycles is that this rally is not being driven by a single catalyst. The World Gold Council’s own attribution model shows the 2025 run as unusually balanced across economic uncertainty, inflation expectations, opportunity cost dynamics, and momentum, a signal that the demand is broad-based and not easily reversed.
The Structural Pillars
Central bank buying is the cornerstone of the thesis. Since 2022, central banks have purchased over 1,000 tonnes annually, more than double their 2015 to 2019 average.
The World Gold Council’s 2025 survey showed the strongest buying intentions since the survey launched, albeit that survey only began in 2019.
Emerging market central banks are leading this trend, driven by a deliberate move to reduce US dollar concentration in reserve portfolios, a dynamic that does not reverse with a ceasefire in Iran.
Crucially, gold recently surpassed US Treasuries in share of global central bank reserves for the first time since 1996.
That is not a market move. That is a structural realignment in how sovereign institutions manage geopolitical and fiscal risk. And it is still in the early innings for most emerging market central banks whose gold reserves remain well below developed market levels.
The macro setup also remains supportive. The Fed is in an easing cycle. A weaker dollar, whether driven by rate differentials or fiscal concerns around the expanding US debt load, is a direct tailwind for gold.
Bottom Line
Three themes converged in a short window:
As your fiduciary financial planner, we will continue to monitor these developments closely to ensure your portfolio remains aligned with your long-term objectives.
Whew. Let’s hope we have fewer months like February the rest of the year!!!
(704) 936-0084
Disclaimer
Portus Wealth Advisors, LLC (“Portus”) is a registered investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Registration with the SEC does not imply a certain level of skill or training and does not constitute endorsement by the SEC.
The information contained in this communication is for informational purposes only, is general in nature, and is not directed to any specific individual. It does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security. Reading this communication does not create an advisory relationship with Portus.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of Portus as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice. Portus makes no representation that any opinion or projection will be realized. Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable; however, Portus does not warrant its accuracy, completeness, or timeliness.
Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific strategy will be profitable or suitable for an investor’s individual circumstances. Investors should consult their own tax, legal, and financial professionals before making investment decisions.