
美國與以色列對伊朗發動大規模軍事行動,致使伊朗最高領袖阿亞圖拉·阿里·哈梅內伊身亡,全球石油市場隨即受到沖擊。布倫特原油價格上周末飆升8%,至每桶約78美元,這反映出市場對中東能源供應的高度擔憂。不過,高盛集團(Goldman Sachs)的石油研究主管達安·斯特魯伊文表示,當前油價恰恰揭示了交易員的押注:能源供應中斷將持續約四周。
3月2日,斯特魯伊文在《Goldman Sachs Exchanges》播客節目中剖析了市場反應背后的數學邏輯。高盛集團估算,若不存在持續供應中斷,布倫特原油的公允價值約為每桶65美元。斯特魯伊文解釋道:“當前油價達到每桶78美元,意味著市場已經計入13美元的風險溢價。”根據該公司的模型,這13美元的溢價,與霍爾木茲海峽(Strait of Hormuz)完全封鎖約一個月對油價的預期影響基本一致。
目前,霍爾木茲海峽,這條通常承擔全球約五分之一石油供應任務的咽喉要道,并未完全關閉。斯特魯伊文解釋稱,原油出口量大幅下滑,實則源于恐慌情緒。在三艘船舶受損、保險費用飆升的消息傳出后,航運商與石油生產商已經進入“觀望模式”。
市場定價計入的四周時間,已經成為影響全球經濟的關鍵臨界值。斯特魯伊文指出,油價受沖擊程度與供應中斷時長呈“凸函數關系”。如果沖突持續時間較短——僅持續數日或一周,對油價的影響將小得多。在短期沖突的情境下,中東產油國可以將原油儲存在陸地設施中,延遲交付,全球原油累計供應量不會受到影響——倘若伊朗封鎖海峽,這也是一個可行的應對方案。
然而,若戰爭及海峽實際封鎖時長超出市場預期的四周,經濟后果就將不堪設想。一旦區域儲油設施庫容耗盡,原油生產被迫關停,市場就只能通過強制性的“需求破壞”實現再平衡。“要形成大規模的需求破壞,油價可能需要漲至三位數?!彼固佤斠廖木娴?,并補充稱,當前市場最關鍵的變量是供應中斷的持續時長。原油價格每持續上漲10%,整體通脹率就會上升約0.3%,居民可支配收入也會下降同等幅度。
在斯特魯伊文做出上述測算之際,經濟學家們正在評估唐納德·特朗普發起的“史詩怒火行動”(Operation Epic Fury)對美國經濟造成的沖擊。賓夕法尼亞大學沃頓商學院(Penn Wharton)的預算模型項目主任肯特·斯梅特斯此前對《財富》雜志表示,他測算的經濟損失區間跨度極大,最高或達2100億美元。對于戰爭成本的常規核算方式,斯梅特斯提出一點警示。他補充道:“我認為戰爭成本核算存在一個問題:完全忽略了反事實情境。如果伊朗真的擁有核武器,那么我們后續在軍事開支乃至城市重建上的投入,可能要多得多。”
閑置產能“受限”進一步加劇了沖突長期化的風險。斯特魯伊文解釋稱,全球市場通常依賴沙特阿拉伯、阿聯酋和科威特的閑置產能來緩沖油價沖擊,但這些原油通常需經霍爾木茲海峽運往全球市場。因此,只要海峽航運受阻,這些閑置產能就無法實際投放市場。此外,盡管美國戰略石油儲備(Strategic Petroleum Reserve)是應對供應持續中斷的典型方式,但當前儲備量僅約4.15億桶,較2022年能源危機前的儲備量少了2億多桶。
歸根結底,市場對沖突將持續四周的判斷是否準確,取決于未來的數日地緣政治局勢。斯特魯伊文正在密切關注預示沖突持續時長的信號。他指出,若美國政府提出“政權更迭”等全面目標,可能預示著一場持久戰;若軍事目標范圍收窄,或伊朗出現改革派領導人,則可能為沖突早日結束提供契機。目前,華爾街正在為持續一個月的動蕩定價,寄望于石油供應能夠在油價逼近三位數前恢復。(財富中文網)
《財富》雜志記者在撰寫本文時使用生成式人工智能搜索信息。本文發布前,編輯已核實信息準確性。
譯者:中慧言-王芳
美國與以色列對伊朗發動大規模軍事行動,致使伊朗最高領袖阿亞圖拉·阿里·哈梅內伊身亡,全球石油市場隨即受到沖擊。布倫特原油價格上周末飆升8%,至每桶約78美元,這反映出市場對中東能源供應的高度擔憂。不過,高盛集團(Goldman Sachs)的石油研究主管達安·斯特魯伊文表示,當前油價恰恰揭示了交易員的押注:能源供應中斷將持續約四周。
3月2日,斯特魯伊文在《Goldman Sachs Exchanges》播客節目中剖析了市場反應背后的數學邏輯。高盛集團估算,若不存在持續供應中斷,布倫特原油的公允價值約為每桶65美元。斯特魯伊文解釋道:“當前油價達到每桶78美元,意味著市場已經計入13美元的風險溢價?!备鶕摴镜哪P停@13美元的溢價,與霍爾木茲海峽(Strait of Hormuz)完全封鎖約一個月對油價的預期影響基本一致。
目前,霍爾木茲海峽,這條通常承擔全球約五分之一石油供應任務的咽喉要道,并未完全關閉。斯特魯伊文解釋稱,原油出口量大幅下滑,實則源于恐慌情緒。在三艘船舶受損、保險費用飆升的消息傳出后,航運商與石油生產商已經進入“觀望模式”。
市場定價計入的四周時間,已經成為影響全球經濟的關鍵臨界值。斯特魯伊文指出,油價受沖擊程度與供應中斷時長呈“凸函數關系”。如果沖突持續時間較短——僅持續數日或一周,對油價的影響將小得多。在短期沖突的情境下,中東產油國可以將原油儲存在陸地設施中,延遲交付,全球原油累計供應量不會受到影響——倘若伊朗封鎖海峽,這也是一個可行的應對方案。
然而,若戰爭及海峽實際封鎖時長超出市場預期的四周,經濟后果就將不堪設想。一旦區域儲油設施庫容耗盡,原油生產被迫關停,市場就只能通過強制性的“需求破壞”實現再平衡?!耙纬纱笠幠5男枨笃茐?,油價可能需要漲至三位數?!彼固佤斠廖木娴?,并補充稱,當前市場最關鍵的變量是供應中斷的持續時長。原油價格每持續上漲10%,整體通脹率就會上升約0.3%,居民可支配收入也會下降同等幅度。
在斯特魯伊文做出上述測算之際,經濟學家們正在評估唐納德·特朗普發起的“史詩怒火行動”(Operation Epic Fury)對美國經濟造成的沖擊。賓夕法尼亞大學沃頓商學院(Penn Wharton)的預算模型項目主任肯特·斯梅特斯此前對《財富》雜志表示,他測算的經濟損失區間跨度極大,最高或達2100億美元。對于戰爭成本的常規核算方式,斯梅特斯提出一點警示。他補充道:“我認為戰爭成本核算存在一個問題:完全忽略了反事實情境。如果伊朗真的擁有核武器,那么我們后續在軍事開支乃至城市重建上的投入,可能要多得多?!?/p>
閑置產能“受限”進一步加劇了沖突長期化的風險。斯特魯伊文解釋稱,全球市場通常依賴沙特阿拉伯、阿聯酋和科威特的閑置產能來緩沖油價沖擊,但這些原油通常需經霍爾木茲海峽運往全球市場。因此,只要海峽航運受阻,這些閑置產能就無法實際投放市場。此外,盡管美國戰略石油儲備(Strategic Petroleum Reserve)是應對供應持續中斷的典型方式,但當前儲備量僅約4.15億桶,較2022年能源危機前的儲備量少了2億多桶。
歸根結底,市場對沖突將持續四周的判斷是否準確,取決于未來的數日地緣政治局勢。斯特魯伊文正在密切關注預示沖突持續時長的信號。他指出,若美國政府提出“政權更迭”等全面目標,可能預示著一場持久戰;若軍事目標范圍收窄,或伊朗出現改革派領導人,則可能為沖突早日結束提供契機。目前,華爾街正在為持續一個月的動蕩定價,寄望于石油供應能夠在油價逼近三位數前恢復。(財富中文網)
《財富》雜志記者在撰寫本文時使用生成式人工智能搜索信息。本文發布前,編輯已核實信息準確性。
譯者:中慧言-王芳
In the wake of a major U.S. and Israeli military campaign against Iran that resulted in the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, global oil markets experienced an immediate jolt. Brent crude oil prices surged 8% over the weekend to approximately $78 a barrel, reflecting acute anxiety over Middle Eastern energy supplies. However, according to Goldman Sachs’ head of oil research, Daan Struyven, this specific price point reveals exactly what traders are betting on: a disruption lasting about four weeks.
Speaking on the Goldman Sachs Exchanges podcast on March 2, Struyven broke down the math behind the market’s reaction. Without sustained supply disruptions, Goldman Sachs estimates the fair value for Brent crude oil to be around $65 per barrel. “With the market price at $78, the market is essentially pricing an $13 per barrel risk premium,” Struyven explained. According to the firm’s models, this $13 premium perfectly aligns with the expected price impact of a 100% full closure of the Strait of Hormuz lasting for roughly one month.
Currently, the Strait of Hormuz—a vital chokepoint that normally handles about one-fifth of the world’s global oil supply—is not completely shut down. Instead, Struyven explained that the sharp drop in export flows is being driven by fear. Shippers and oil producers have entered a “wait-and-see mode” following reports of damage to three ships and skyrocketing insurance premiums.
The four-week timeline priced in by the market represents a critical threshold for the global economy. Struyven noted that the impact on oil prices is a “convex function” of the disruption’s length. If the conflict is brief—lasting only a few days or a week—the impact on prices will be disproportionately smaller. In a short-term scenario, crude oil can simply be stored on land in Middle Eastern producing countries, delaying deliveries but leaving the cumulative global supply unaffected—a workaround if Iran’s threats of shutting down the strait stretch come to fruition.
However, if the war and the effective closure of the strait stretch beyond the market’s four-week expectation, the economic consequences could become dire. If regional storage facilities run out of space and production is forced to shut down, the market will be able to rebalance only through forced “demand destruction.” “To generate substantial demand destruction, prices may have to rise into triple-digit territory,” Struyven warned, adding that the length of the disruption is the single most important variable in the market right now. Every sustained 10% increase in crude oil prices raises headline inflation by about 0.3% and reduces disposable income by the same margin.
Struyven’s calculations come as economists are surveying the damage that President Donald Trump’s Operation Epic Fury is doing to the U.S. economy. Penn Wharton budget model director Kent Smetters previously told Fortune that he estimates a wide range of outcomes, including damage to the U.S. economy as high as $210 billion. Smetters offered one note of caution about how war costs are typically framed. “One problem I have with cost-of-war calculations is that they really do ignore the counterfactual,” he added. “If Iran really did get a nuclear weapon, then we might have spent a lot more on military and even repair of cities later on.”
Compounding the danger of a prolonged conflict is the reality of “trapped” spare capacity. While the global market normally relies on spare capacity in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait to buffer against price shocks, Struyven explained that those barrels typically must flow through the Strait of Hormuz to reach global buyers. Consequently, as long as the strait remains compromised, that spare capacity cannot be physically deployed. Furthermore, while the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) could be used as a textbook response to sustained disruptions, the SPR currently holds around 415 million barrels—more than 200 million barrels lower than it was prior to the 2022 energy crisis.
Ultimately, whether the market’s four-week bet proves accurate will depend on geopolitical developments in the coming days. Struyven is closely watching for signals regarding the conflict’s length, noting that sweeping goals like “regime change” from the U.S. administration could indicate a protracted war, while narrower military goals or the rise of a reformist leader in Iran could offer an off-ramp for a shorter conflict. For now, Wall Street is pricing in a month of turmoil, hoping the physical flow of oil resumes before prices are forced into the triple digits.
For this story, Fortune journalists used generative AI as a research tool. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.