#Gate广场四月发帖挑战 Trump "Blockade of the Strait of Hormuz," Goldman Sachs: The stock market faces the "final showdown"

After the breakdown of US-Iran ceasefire negotiations, the Strait of Hormuz is once again in the spotlight—Goldman Sachs warns that U.S. stocks have been drawn into a "final battle."

According to Wind Trading Platform, on April 13, Goldman Sachs global banking and markets strategist Shreeti Kapa published a market commentary titled "Equities – The Final Battle," analyzing the current geopolitical situation and the direction of U.S. stocks. During this round of Middle East conflict, the S&P 500 experienced a maximum pullback of about 9%, which was largely recovered within days after the ceasefire announcement. This aligns closely with historical patterns—geopolitical shocks typically cause an average decline of 8% in the S&P 500, lasting about 18 days. However, the firm believes that before a negotiated agreement is reached, the market risk-reward ratio remains unfavorable. The current risk-reward is not ideal: the situation remains unresolved, yet the market has already rebounded close to all-time highs. Short-term technical fund flows are very favorable, but without a comprehensive negotiation agreement, it’s unlikely that genuine buying interest will emerge.

01
Struggle for the Strait of Hormuz: History’s verdict never favors the bold
Goldman Sachs believes that the future trajectory of the Hormuz situation will serve as the "ultimate signal" for the outcome of the conflict.
After ceasefire negotiations broke down, the U.S. announced it would blockade the Strait of Hormuz. According to CCTV News, the U.S. Central Command issued a statement saying that starting at 10 a.m. Eastern Time on April 13, all maritime traffic entering or leaving Iranian ports would be blocked.
Strategist Kapa wrote: Whoever controls the Strait of Hormuz is the winner. But history shows that no party has ever achieved its strategic goals solely through blockades or seizing key shipping chokepoints. He cites lessons from history: whether it was the 1956 Suez Canal crisis, Japan’s control of the Malacca Strait during World War II, or the 1980s "Tanker War," "no party has ever achieved strategic objectives solely by blockade or occupation of key straits." Kapa states: The winner of a chokepoint crisis is neither the party controlling the geography nor the one with the strongest navy. The victor is the country most adept at managing escalation dynamics and securing— or at least obtaining— the tacit approval of the major powers that depend on that waterway. In 1956, the key major power was the United States.
By 2026, this role has shifted to countries like India, Japan, and South Korea—these are the largest importers of Hormuz crude oil.
Goldman Sachs believes their positions will directly determine whether Iran’s blockade becomes a bargaining chip or leads to isolation; whether the U.S. blockade can be sustained or becomes unsustainable. The report quotes a war adage: in war, the ability to endure pain is often more important than the ability to inflict pain. The firm also warns that while the U.S. may have complete maritime dominance, it might not be able to clear mines quickly enough—if supply shocks trigger an economic crisis, the initiative could shift again. The verdict of history remains consistent: the bold and aggressive never win; the most patient always do.
Kapa suggests that referencing the Montreux Convention might be a way out—acknowledging Iran’s geographical leverage while securing guarantees to keep the strait open. But the report bluntly states: every historical precedent shows that military force alone will not produce this outcome. The question is how much the world is willing to pay to bring all parties back to the negotiating table—and history says that’s the only endpoint.

02
Market pullback aligns with historical patterns, but risk-reward remains unfavorable
Turning to the market, during this round of geopolitical conflict, the S&P 500 experienced a maximum decline of about 9%, which was mostly recovered within days after the ceasefire news. This closely follows historical patterns—geopolitical shocks typically cause an 8% correction in the S&P 500 over about 18 days, though the range is "quite wide."
In recent years, most geopolitical shocks have had limited long-term impacts on the market unless accompanied by tail risks such as recession or monetary policy shocks. However, the report remains cautious about the outlook: "Are we fully out of danger? I don’t think so, because negotiations over the weekend seem to have failed." Its direct conclusion: the risk-reward of stocks is "not ideal." The reason is that the conflict is not fully resolved, yet the market has already rebounded close to all-time highs. Short-term technical fund inflows can support the rally, but "it’s hard to imagine genuine buying interest without a complete negotiation agreement."
The price movements over the past 6 to 8 weeks have clearly outlined the market’s preference structure: winners include AI optical networks, AI data centers, storage, and memory-related stocks—best performers since the start of the year, with moderate declines during the conflict and the strongest rebounds after the ceasefire. Energy stocks saw slight corrections after the ceasefire but remain strong for the year, confirming the long-term structural demand for physical infrastructure.
Losers include software, IT services, and "AI risk exposure" stocks—continuously shorted during the conflict, with shorting intensifying after the ceasefire.

03
Tech stocks: one of the weakest relative performances in 50 years, but valuation opportunities are emerging
Goldman Sachs strategist Peter Oppenheimer previously pointed out that the technology sector (hardware and software) is experiencing one of the weakest relative returns in the past 50 years, due to concerns over ROI from mega cloud providers and AI disruption risks. "Investors are eager to avoid becoming Kodak, IBM, Nokia, or BlackBerry in the AI era." Meanwhile, the market’s assumptions about the terminal value of long-duration growth stocks like software are beginning to waver—these stocks previously benefited from unwavering confidence in sustained high growth and historically low interest rates, both of which are now easing. Although the overall market is only a few percentage points below its all-time high, Goldman’s "long-term growth stock" basket remains over 20% below its October 2025 peak. About 30% of this basket is software stocks, but even excluding software, the median P/E ratio of non-software growth stocks is 29, a 53% premium over the S&P 500 median, close to the low end of the past decade’s range. These companies are expected to grow their revenues three times faster than the median S&P 500 by 2027. In contrast, power infrastructure stocks have significantly outperformed since the start of the year. The firm believes that current valuation compression is creating attractive entry opportunities for investors, and the macro environment (moderate economic growth) is generally favorable for growth stocks.