Over the weekend, the United States and allied forces attacked Iran. Conflict in the Middle East continues. Lately (and sadly), this has become the norm of unsettling headlines. 

Consider recent examples: Russia invaded Ukraine, terrorist attacks, missile strikes, civil wars, and even regional conflicts.  If you watch the news, it’s likely you won’t miss these events. Depending on your source, there may be various views on each of these, but this is not the forum to express political or social views.  This is strictly a piece about how the markets react when these events occur.

What Does Geopolitical Conflict Mean for the Market?

History offers a helpful perspective. While geopolitical shocks create short-term uncertainty, the long-term behavior of markets has been remarkably consistent. Markets react quickly to uncertainty (markets hate uncertainty), but they also tend to recover faster than many expect. Looking at the data across decades of conflict reveals an important lesson for investors. Economic fundamentals influence the markets far more than geopolitical headlines.

Recent conflicts provide a good starting point. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, markets initially reacted with volatility. The S&P 500 closed that day at 4,288 and three months later had declined to roughly 3,941, a drop of about 8 percent. This was one of the more significant short-term reactions in recent years, largely because the conflict affected global energy markets, supply chains, and inflation.

In contrast, other major conflicts have had very different outcomes:

When Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, the first trading day afterward saw the S&P 500 at roughly 4,336. Three months later, the index was near 4,756. Instead of declining, the market rose nearly 10 percent during that period.
The Sudan civil war began in April 2023. From the first trading day after the conflict started to three months later, the S&P 500 gained close to 9 percent.
When the Taliban took control of Kabul in August 2021, markets barely reacted. The S&P 500 rose almost 5 percent over the following three months.
Even regional conflicts such as the 2020 war between Armenia and Azerbaijan saw markets move higher in the months that followed.

At first glance, this may seem counterintuitive. Major global conflicts dominate headlines and create uncertainty, yet markets often recover quickly or continue moving higher. To understand why, it helps to zoom out and look at a longer history. 

Since World War II, dozens of geopolitical shocks have captured the world’s attention: Pearl Harbor in 1941, the Korean War in 1950, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the Gulf War in 1990, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Each of these events created significant uncertainty in the moment. They led investors to question what might happen next. Yet, when researchers studied how markets behaved after these events, a clear pattern emerged.

According to historical analysis by LPL Research examining geopolitical events since World War II, the S&P 500 has experienced an average decline of roughly 5 percent following geopolitical shocks, with markets typically bottoming in about three weeks and recovering within one to two months. In other words, markets tend to process geopolitical shocks quickly.

Consider a few examples:

During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, as the United States and the Soviet Union approached the brink of nuclear conflict, the S&P 500 fell about 7 percent in the first several trading days. Once the crisis de-escalated, markets recovered those losses in just over two weeks.
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. markets were closed for several days. When trading resumed the S&P 500 dropped about 11 percent in the first week. Within roughly a month the market had recovered those losses.
Even the Gulf War in 1990, which coincided with a recession, saw markets recover within several months once uncertainty began to fade.
Looking across decades of history, another interesting pattern appears. Markets are often higher one year after geopolitical shocks. According to research published by Hartford Funds examining armed conflicts since World War II, the S&P 500 was higher one year after the onset of conflict roughly 70 percent of the time. The average one-year return has historically been in high single digits.

Why Do Markets Historically Increase Following Conflict?

The key reason markets increase is that they ultimately respond to economic growth, corporate earnings, interest rates, and innovation. Geopolitical events may affect these forces in the short term, but they rarely change the long-term trajectory of economic progress.

Investors tend to react emotionally to headlines.

Markets tend to react analytically to fundamentals.

This does not mean conflicts are irrelevant. Some events have had meaningful economic consequences. The oil embargo of the 1970s is one example where geopolitical events triggered inflation and a difficult market environment. More recently, the invasion of Ukraine contributed to global energy volatility and inflation pressures that were already building in the post-pandemic economy. But even in these situations, the market response was tied more closely to economic ripple effects than to the conflict itself.

The important distinction is this: Markets are not reacting to the presence of conflict. They are reacting to how that conflict might affect the economy.

If a geopolitical event does not materially change global economic growth, markets tend to move past it relatively quickly. This perspective can be helpful during periods when the news cycle feels overwhelming. Every generation of investors experiences moments when the world appears unusually uncertain.

Yet when we look back through history, uncertainty has always been present in one form or another: World Wars, Cold Wars, regional conflicts, and political crises. Through it all, markets have continued to grow alongside the global economy.

For investors, the lesson is simple.

Short-term market reactions to geopolitical shocks are normal. Volatility often accompanies uncertainty. But history suggests that making long-term investment decisions based on geopolitical headlines has rarely been a successful strategy. In the moment, these events feel unprecedented. But in history, they rarely are. This time it’s different, or is it?

Thinking about how this applies to you?

If this topic connects to decisions you’re facing, Beacon Hill Private Wealth helps clients evaluate planning, investment, and tax considerations in context and over time.

Request an introductory conversation

Beacon Hill Private Wealth is an independent, fee-only fiduciary investment advisory firm. Founder Tom Geoghegan provides coordinated wealth management that integrates evidence-based investing with tax-aware financial planning, helping professionals and families navigate complex financial decisions over time.

The information provided is educational and general in nature and is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, specific investment, tax, or legal advice. Individuals should seek advice from their wealth advisor or other advisors before undertaking actions in response to the matters discussed. No client or prospective should assume the above information serves as the receipt of, or substitute for, personalized individual advice. This reflects our opinions, may contain forward-looking statements, and presents information that may change. Nothing contained in this communication may be relied upon as a guarantee, promise, assurance, or representation as to the future. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Market conditions can vary widely over time, and certain market and economic events having a positive impact on performance may not repeat themselves. Investing involves risk, including, but not limited to, loss of principal. Our opinions may change over time due to market conditions and other factors. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives. This is prepared using third party sources considered to be reliable; however, accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. The information provided will not be updated any time after the date of publication. ©2026 Focus Partners Advisor Solutions, LLC. All rights reserved. RO-26-5263741