Tareno View April 2026

With calm and disci­pline through geopo­li­tical uncer­tainty

The third Gulf War has been keeping the finan­cial markets on tenter­hooks for a good six weeks now. New, sometimes contra­dic­tory signals from Washington on a daily basis are forcing investors to constantly reassess the situa­tion. The focus is on three questions: How long will the Strait of Hormuz remain blocked? How will energy prices develop? And what does the supply shock mean for infla­tion, interest rates and growth?

Especi­ally in such an environ­ment, it is crucial to see through the geopo­li­tical uncer­tainty with calm and disci­pline and to maintain a compre­hen­sive, longer-term view. In this Tareno View, we explain how we assess the macroe­co­nomic situa­tion, where we see oppor­tu­ni­ties and risks on the markets and how we position our portfo­lios in this uncer­tain environ­ment. Our quint­essence before­hand: stick to the invest­ment strategy, but exercise caution with new risk invest­ments follo­wing the sharp price recovery.

Macroe­co­nomic environ­ment

Limited energy price shock

Since the outbreak of the war, the debate has revolved around its macroe­co­nomic conse­quences. One thing is clear: a blocked Strait of Hormuz will lead to a severe shortage of energy and other raw materials from the Persian Gulf. The economic chain reaction includes higher energy prices, rising infla­tio­nary pressure, tighter interest rate expec­ta­tions and lower growth forecasts. Accor­dingly, the capital markets have come under pressure in the short term.

However, it is not the shock itself that is decisive, but its duration. The longer the trade route remains blocked and the more the energy infras­truc­ture is damaged, the greater the risk that a tempo­rary supply shock will result in a broader, negative economic and infla­tio­nary impulse. A cease­fire has been in place since April 8. Diplo­matic talks have so far been incon­clu­sive, but an agree­ment in the coming weeks seems reali­stic, as the costs of further escala­tion would be considerable for both sides.

Struc­tural growth forces remain intact

Our base scenario there­fore remains that the Strait of Hormuz will not be closed for an extended period and energy prices will not continue to rise signi­fi­cantly. In this case, global infla­tion rates are likely to rise only modera­tely tempo­r­a­rily, which would not force the major central banks to raise interest rates again, meaning that the positive economic momentum should continue, supported by two important struc­tural growth drivers:

Firstly, artifi­cial intel­li­gence conti­nues to drive a massive invest­ment cycle in data centers and energy infras­truc­ture. Secondly, fiscal policy in the US, Germany and Japan is having an expan­sio­nary effect. As long as the energy shock remains limited in time, we there­fore do not see a break in the global growth path, but rather a tempo­rary burden within an economic environ­ment that remains robust.

This is also evidenced by a large number of high-frequency economic indica­tors, such as the Dallas Fed’s Weekly Economic Index, which provides a timely signal of current real economic activity in the US on the basis of several daily and weekly data series and is scaled to GDP growth. The most recent value from April 9 signals above-average growth of 2.7%.

Market commen­tary

The markets are focusing on norma­lization

With the cease­fire, the global stock markets have clearly recovered from their lows and are now trading only modera­tely below their highs.

The sigh of relief on the stock markets is under­stan­dable, but it would be prema­ture to sound the all-clear. If the negotia­tions fail or there are renewed attacks on energy infras­truc­ture and trans­port routes, the conse­quences would be much more serious than in our baseline scenario. A prolonged supply shock would not only fuel infla­tion, but also put pressure on the profit margins of energy-inten­sive compa­nies and put central banks in an unplea­sant dilemma.

The risks are only priced in to a limited extent

This is precisely why we urge caution when making new invest­ments. Investor senti­ment has already returned to neutral terri­tory and the futures markets for crude oil are once again antici­pa­ting a signi­fi­cant fall in oil prices. In other words, the risks are only reflected in prices to a limited extent. If there is a renewed escala­tion, there is poten­tial for disap­point­ment.

Techno­logy is more attrac­tive again

Apart from the conflict in the Middle East, the large perfor­mance discrepancy between the sectors on the stock market is striking. Follo­wing the weak phase of techno­logy stocks, we are revising our more cautious stance from the begin­ning of the year. While share prices corrected, earnings estimates were adjusted further upwards.

Invest­ment policy

Focused on growth, armed against infla­tion

Since the begin­ning of the war, we have advised investors to remain true to their invest­ment strategy and to avoid panic selling. This assess­ment has so far proven to be correct and remains valid. Based on the robust economic momentum, our focus remains clearly on equities, supple­mented by invest­ments with inherent infla­tion protec­tion. For us, these include infras­truc­ture invest­ments, gold and crypto­cur­ren­cies in parti­cular. They fulfill diffe­rent functions, but together they increase the robust­ness of the portfolio in an environ­ment charac­te­rized by infla­tion risks.

Anticy­clical between euphoria and fear

In the first quarter, we realized some of the gains on our gold position near the highs and at the same time increased our Ethereum position by around 20% below current levels. The senti­ment in both segments could hardly have been more contra­sting. Follo­wing the sharp rise in the price of gold, there were incre­a­sing signs of euphoria. In the crypto sector, on the other hand, senti­ment indica­tors signaled extreme fear, although little had changed in the funda­mental picture. It is precisely in such phases that the value of a disci­plined, anti-cyclical approach becomes apparent.

USD risks remain in the medium term

We see the US dollar stabi­li­zing in the short term, but no struc­tural change of direc­tion. The conflict has tempo­r­a­rily supported the dollar, buoyed by higher US yields and inflows into safe havens. However, as geopo­li­tical stress eases, the overar­ching downtrend is likely to come to the fore again. It there­fore remains sensible for CHF and EUR investors to hedge some of their USD risk.

Bonds are becoming somewhat more intere­sting again

Although bonds are not one of our preferred asset classes, the picture has improved. With the war, yield curves and credit spreads have shifted upwards. As a result, bonds are signi­fi­cantly less unattrac­tive than they were at the begin­ning of the year. With maturi­ties and surplus liqui­dity, oppor­tu­ni­ties are opening up again in the medium maturity range.