By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agrees that the historical pattern of 24% average S&P 500 gains in 12 months post-oil shock is not reliable due to incomplete data, high valuations, and the current policy environment. They suggest that a persistent oil shock could lead to earnings downgrades and multiple compression, potentially overriding historical patterns.
Risk: Sustained high oil prices leading to earnings downgrades and multiple compression across discretionary and transport sectors, potentially causing a broad market downturn.
Opportunity: Energy sector (XLE) may benefit from higher oil prices, but this is unlikely to offset the negative impact on multinational companies and the broader market.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Key Points
Although the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite have thrived, history teaches investors that stocks don't move up in a straight line.
An oil price shock caused by the Iran war may not be the doomsday scenario for stocks that skeptics have made it out to be.
However, the Federal Reserve is a wildcard that historical oil price movements can't account for.
- 10 stocks we like better than S&P 500 Index ›
For the better part of the last seven years, the bulls have been in full control on Wall Street. Since 2019, the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) has gained at least 16% each year, save for 2022. Meanwhile, the ageless Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJINDICES: ^DJI) and growth-focused Nasdaq Composite (NASDAQINDEX: ^IXIC) have also pushed to several record highs.
But history teaches investors that stocks don't advance in a straight line.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Since the U.S. and Israel began conducting military operations against Iran on Feb. 28, Wall Street's major indexes have swooned. At the same time, crude oil prices have skyrocketed.
While this dynamic clearly has investors on edge, 40 years of history covering this exact scenario point to a huge move to come in stocks.
Patience has proved profitable when oil prices soar
Energy supply chain disruption is the primary concern associated with the Iran war. Following initial attacks, Iran virtually closed the Strait of Hormuz to oil exports. Approximately 20% of the world's liquid petroleum travels through the Strait of Hormuz daily. If this supply is constrained, the law of supply and demand states that the price of this in-demand good should rise -- and rise it has!
West Texas Intermediate and Brent crude oil prices have skyrocketed in the wake of this conflict, sparking concerns in the U.S. about higher energy prices, a potential uptick in the prevailing inflation rate, and the possibility that the Fed will consider interest rate hikes down the road.
But when oil price shocks have previously occurred, they've almost always been a buy signal for investors.
The S&P 500 has averaged +24% in the 12 months after an oil shock.
-- Phil Rosen (@philrosenn) March 13, 2026
Crude prices have surged 20% in 48 hours just 8 times in the last 40 years.
Stocks were up in 7 of 8 instances.
History favors the bulls. pic.twitter.com/0jir405fq6
According to journalist and Opening Bell Daily co-founder Phil Rosen via a post on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), crude oil prices have surged by at least 20% over a two-day period on eight occasions since 1986, including the latest move. The S&P 500 was higher one year later following six of these seven price shocks.
What's even more noteworthy is the magnitude of gains for the benchmark index following crude oil price shocks. On average, the S&P 500 was higher by 24% one year after a 20% or greater two-day surge in oil prices.
While the past can't guarantee what's to come with 100% accuracy, 40 years of history clearly point to a significant move higher in equities over the next year.
The Fed is Wall Street's wildcard
Although historical precedent and long-term data strongly favor optimists, the Federal Reserve is a wildcard that historical oil price movements can't account for.
In February, Core Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) hit a 22-month high of 3.1%. This is, arguably, the favorite inflationary measure used by the Fed when making monetary policy decisions. With the Core PCE well above the Fed's 2% long-term target and the oil price shock not yet reflected in the prevailing inflation rate, it seems increasingly likely that the rate-easing cycle will be put on hold.
Typically, a wait-and-see approach wouldn't be a big deal. But with this being the second-priciest stock market in history, there's little margin for error and a built-in expectation from investors that America's foremost financial institution will continue lowering interest rates to promote lending.
If this oil price shock persists, it's possible that the Fed could trump 40 years of history.
Should you buy stock in S&P 500 Index right now?
Before you buy stock in S&P 500 Index, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and S&P 500 Index wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $510,710!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,105,949!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 927% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 186% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 20, 2026.
Sean Williams has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Historical oil-shock returns are real, but they occurred in fundamentally different Fed/valuation regimes; today's 22x forward P/E and 3.1% Core PCE leave zero room for the Fed to stay accommodative if oil persists."
The article's historical claim—24% average S&P 500 gains in 12 months post-oil shock—is real but dangerously incomplete. It cherry-picks 8 instances over 40 years without controlling for Fed policy stance, starting valuations, or earnings growth at shock onset. We're at 22x forward P/E with Core PCE at 3.1% vs. the Fed's 2% target. The 1986, 1990, and 2003 oil shocks occurred when either rates were falling or valuations were depressed. Today, the Fed is likely paused or hiking, and the market is priced for perfection. The article acknowledges this wildcard but buries it. A persistent oil shock that forces the Fed to hold rates higher for longer while demand destruction hits earnings could easily override historical patterns.
If the oil shock proves temporary (Strait of Hormuz reopens, geopolitical tensions ease), inflation stays contained, and the Fed cuts as markets expect by mid-2026, the historical precedent holds and the 24% thesis plays out.
"The current high valuation of the S&P 500 makes it uniquely vulnerable to an energy-induced inflationary shock that forces the Federal Reserve to abandon its rate-cutting cycle."
The article’s reliance on a 40-year historical sample size of just eight events is statistically thin and ignores the current regime of extreme equity valuations. With the S&P 500 trading near record-high forward P/E multiples, the market lacks the 'valuation cushion' that existed in many of those historical instances. Furthermore, the correlation between oil shocks and equity performance is breaking down because we are no longer in a disinflationary environment. If the Fed is forced to pause or reverse rate cuts due to energy-driven Core PCE spikes, the 'soft landing' narrative collapses, likely triggering a multiple compression event across growth-heavy indices like the Nasdaq-100.
The historical resilience of the U.S. consumer and the potential for energy-sector earnings to offset broader market weakness could provide a floor for the S&P 500 even if interest rates remain elevated.
"N/A"
[Unavailable]
"A sample of 8 events over 40 years is too small to reliably predict outcomes in today's high-valuation, Fed-constrained environment."
The article touts a +24% average S&P 500 return 12 months after 8 rare 20% oil surges in 48 hours since 1986, but this tiny sample (one counterexample) ignores context: past shocks (e.g., Gulf Wars) resolved amid lower valuations (historical avg P/E ~16x vs today's ~21x forward) and looser policy. With Core PCE at 3.1% pre-shock, persistent oil above $90/bbl risks 4%+ inflation, halting Fed cuts and sparking stagflation—hurting consumer stocks (XLY) while boosting energy (XLE). Broad market upside hinges on quick Strait resolution; otherwise, re-test 2022 lows plausible.
If the Iran conflict de-escalates rapidly like 7/8 historical cases and AI-driven productivity mutes inflation passthrough, the S&P could indeed rally 24% as precedent suggests.
"Energy sector upside can't offset the dual hit of multiple compression plus earnings revision in a sustained high-oil scenario."
Grok flags the valuation gap (21x vs. 16x historical) but undersells energy sector offset. XLE represents ~4% of S&P 500 weight; even if it doubles, that's +80bps to the index. More critical: nobody's quantified demand destruction elasticity. A $90+ oil regime sustained 6+ months doesn't just stall Fed cuts—it likely forces earnings downgrades across discretionary (XLY, XRT) and transport. That's a multiple AND earnings compression sandwich. The 24% thesis assumes one variable (oil) moves; we're pricing three moving simultaneously.
"Persistent federal deficit spending creates a liquidity floor that invalidates traditional demand-destruction models during oil shocks."
Anthropic is right to focus on the 'earnings sandwich,' but you're all ignoring the fiscal impulse. The U.S. government is running a 6%+ deficit despite a 'full employment' economy. This liquidity floor prevents the demand destruction you're predicting. Even if oil spikes, federal spending keeps the velocity of money high. The real risk isn't just multiple compression; it's a fiscal-monetary tug-of-war where the Fed must hike into a massive Treasury issuance cycle, creating a liquidity trap that historical models never faced.
"Fiscal deficits are unlikely to provide an immediate cushion against oil-driven demand destruction and may even exacerbate rate and liquidity pressures."
Google's 'fiscal impulse' cushion is overstated: a 6% deficit doesn't instantly offset an oil-driven collapse in real incomes—timing, composition, and financing matter. Large deficits funded by long-term Treasury issuance can lift yields, forcing the Fed to tighten, while transfer lags and targeted spending mute near-term consumer support. In short, fiscal policy may not prevent earnings downgrades and could amplify Fed/liquidity stress rather than neutralize it.
"Oil-shock Fed hawkishness fuels USD strength that crushes multinational earnings, undermining fiscal cushions."
OpenAI correctly highlights how deficits lift yields and amplify Fed stress, but connect this to currency: hawkish Fed from oil-fueled inflation surges USD (DXY +7% avg in prior shocks), slamming S&P multinationals (45% rev overseas, e.g., S&P ex-energy EPS -3-5%). Energy's XLE windfall (+4% index weight) won't offset exporter pain—stoking sector rotation over broad rally.
The panel generally agrees that the historical pattern of 24% average S&P 500 gains in 12 months post-oil shock is not reliable due to incomplete data, high valuations, and the current policy environment. They suggest that a persistent oil shock could lead to earnings downgrades and multiple compression, potentially overriding historical patterns.
Energy sector (XLE) may benefit from higher oil prices, but this is unlikely to offset the negative impact on multinational companies and the broader market.
Sustained high oil prices leading to earnings downgrades and multiple compression across discretionary and transport sectors, potentially causing a broad market downturn.