The previous Chief Perspective discussed the "HALO" strategy, noting the clear applicability of a "heavy asset, low淘汰 rate" approach. Beyond aligning allocations with new demand, timing is also crucial. This strategy is essentially a barbell approach, acting as a defensive measure against the accumulated uncertainties from the internal divergence within the new technological revolution. When selecting these assets, one must confront various disruptions; the recent oil crisis triggered by turmoil in the Middle East represents the most significant cyclical disruption.
Standing at the starting point of China's 15th Five-Year Plan in 2026, the global economy and capital markets are at a critical juncture of multi-cycle resonance. From short-term fluctuations caused by oil supply shocks in the Strait of Hormuz to the reshaping of industrial structures driven by the maturation of AI technology, the market's core contradictions consistently revolve around "cycles." It has been consistently emphasized that the analytical logic for 2026 should adhere to "taking the cycle as the guiding principle and profitability as the anchor." From this perspective, the current core market characteristics can be broken down into two main dimensions. The first is cyclical disruption, referring to the short-term impact of a one-off oil crisis on the mid-cycle. The second is cyclical divergence, meaning the reconstruction of industrial value under the combined effects of the technology cycle, energy shocks, and the macroeconomic environment. Although these two dimensions are related in the short term, their core logics and impact pathways are fundamentally different and must be clearly distinguished to grasp the main cyclical thread and avoid short-term noise.
**I. Market Review: Geopolitical Risks Catalyze Heavy Asset Pricing in the HALO Strategy**
The core driver of major asset class movements last week was the resonance between US-Iran geopolitical risks and the recovery expectations of the Juglar cycle (equipment investment cycle). The divergence between commodities and equities further confirmed the heavy asset pricing logic of the HALO strategy.
In commodities, crude oil and precious metals led gains, directly benefiting from expectations of supply contraction due to escalating US-Iran conflict: shipping risks in the Strait of Hormuz pushed up crude oil premiums, while gold received dual support from safe-haven demand and a weaker US dollar, highlighting the profit resilience of hard assets during conflict cycles.
Sector divergence in the A-share market intensified: Pro-cyclical sectors like petrochemicals and coal benefited both from the pass-through of rising oil prices and secondary catalysis from AI computing demand. In contrast, thematic stocks such as media and social services faced valuation compression due to a lack of profit realization capability, amid capital rotation and geopolitical uncertainty. The bond market experienced narrow fluctuations, balanced by stable liquidity expectations and risk-off sentiment, highlighting the core value of coupon strategies.
Overall, US-Iran geopolitical risks accelerated the market's shift from narrative trading to profit realization. Capital concentrated towards heavy assets characterized by supply rigidity and low淘汰 rates, a typical feature of the early stages of Juglar cycle recovery.
**II. Cyclical Disruption – The Short-Term Impact of a One-Off Oil Crisis and Mid-Cycle Resilience**
The strategic confirmation, both externally and internally, between China and the US in 2026 sets the core tone for the annual macroeconomic landscape. Specifically, the US focuses on "energy independence + supply chain security," while China anchors on "high-quality development + industrial upgrade." Both prioritize their own medium-to-long-term strategies, with no intention of deep involvement in regional conflicts. Against this backdrop, the current oil supply shock in the Strait of Hormuz is essentially a one-off disruption within the cycle, not a persistent crisis like those in the 1970s. This assessment aligns with the realistic logic of geopolitical games and fits the concept of "mid-cycle resilience" consistently emphasized. Short-term shocks cannot alter the mid-cycle main themes of industrial upgrade and energy transition; this is the core premise of the analysis.
1. **Nature of the Shock: A One-Off Pulse, Not a Sustained Restructuring** From a cyclical perspective, any short-term supply-side disruption that does not alter the core supply-demand dynamics or the logic of geopolitical competition is unlikely to create a sustained impact. The core of the current Middle East situation is Iran's short-term supply gambit using the Strait of Hormuz as leverage, not a long-term geopolitical restructuring—Iran's primary goal is to gain negotiation leverage, not to completely sever global oil transportation routes, which is fundamentally different from the oil embargoes initiated by oil-producing countries in the 1970s. In terms of response capacity, major global economies have established relatively robust risk-hedging mechanisms: The US has clearly aimed to "restore navigation within weeks," preventing prolonged conflict. OPEC+ has potential capacity to increase production, quickly filling short-term supply gaps. Both China and the US can release strategic petroleum reserves to effectively curb oil price volatility. Oil producers like Saudi Arabia are adjusting shipping routes via Red Sea ports, further reducing reliance on a single passage. These measures collectively determine the temporary nature of the supply constraint. The single-day surge in oil prices is more a premium driven by short-term market risk aversion than a sustained rise driven by fundamentals. Cycles operate according to their internal logic; short-term disruptions, regardless of intensity, cannot reverse mid-cycle trends. The core impact of this oil shock is on short-term market sentiment and localized costs, not the long-term structure of global energy supply and demand. This is key to judging its "one-off" nature.
2. **US Stagflation Concerns: Short-Term Resonance, Not a Trend Dilemma** Recent increased concern about stagflation in the US market is essentially a resonance effect between the geopolitical energy shock and temporarily weaker employment data, not a trend-based situation. This needs objective assessment considering the US's current economic structure and policy direction. The unexpected loss of 92,000 non-farm jobs in February and a rise in the unemployment rate to 4.4%, coupled with rising oil prices squeezing disposable income, did challenge "soft landing" expectations, but this impact is short-term and reversible. Compared to the 1970s, the US economy's ability to withstand energy shocks has significantly improved: firstly, crude oil self-sufficiency has greatly increased, with energy dependence on foreign sources at historic lows, substantially reducing the suppressive effect of energy costs on the economy. Secondly, the Federal Reserve adheres to a "growth priority" core objective, allowing flexible policy adjustments without excessive tightening due to short-term inflation pressures—this logic is entirely different from the Fed's passive rate hikes in the 1970s that exacerbated recession. From a cyclical logic perspective, the core risk of stagflation is the combination of "sustained supply shock + demand recession." While US demand shows fluctuations, there are no signs of recession; the temporary nature of the supply shock means stagflation concerns are more an amplification of market sentiment than a reflection of the actual economic landscape.
3. **Inflation and Costs: Short-Term Pulse, Mid-Cycle Controllable** Oil price pass-through to inflation is direct, but under the policy frameworks of China and the US in 2026, mid-cycle cost pressures are overall controllable, which also reflects "mid-cycle resilience." In the short term, energy costs are expected to push global inflation up by 0.6-0.7 percentage points through transportation, chemicals, and other industrial chain links, with oil-importing Asian nations like China and Japan most affected—an unavoidable short-term cost pressure. However, judging from China's policy layout, preparatory hedging measures are in place: the 2026 inflation target is set at 2.0%, a pragmatic and flexible goal providing ample policy space to address short-term shocks; fiscal support is strengthened through 4.4 trillion yuan in special bonds and 1.3 trillion yuan in ultra-long-term treasury bonds, focusing on infrastructure and industrial upgrade, which can both counter short-term economic downward pressure and reduce long-term energy dependence through industrial upgrade. Simultaneously, the acceleration of new energy substitution and the large-scale application of clean energy like photovoltaics and wind power are gradually diminishing the economic impact of traditional oil price fluctuations. For industrialization and AI integration, while high oil prices temporarily elevate computing and manufacturing costs, China's industrial chain diversification and energy independence layout under the "manufacturing power" strategy have proactively reduced reliance on single passages. From a cyclical perspective, the mid-cycle pace of industrial upgrade will not be interrupted by a one-off cost shock; short-term cost pressure may instead force enterprises to accelerate energy structure optimization, benefiting long-term industrial resilience.
4. **Mid-Cycle Resilience: Shocks Do Not Alter the Industrial Upgrade Main Theme** The strategic confirmation between China and the US in 2026 determines that this oil shock is unlikely to reverse the mid-cycle development direction. The US focuses on the CHIPS Act and energy independence, while China anchors on new quality productive forces and AI+ industrialization. Both treat industrial upgrade as a core driver—this is the central theme of the mid-cycle and the safety cushion against short-term disruptions. From an asset allocation logic perspective, the underlying logic is anchored to the evolution rhythm of the industrial cycle. The decline of old industries and the rise of new ones together constitute the core thread of asset price fluctuations. Although high oil prices temporarily increase global risk premiums and suppress valuations in consumer and tech sectors, they also accelerate policy and capital investment in areas like new energy, energy storage, and shipping insurance. China's tilt of ultra-long-term treasury bonds towards infrastructure and industrial upgrade is a key measure to hedge short-term shocks and strengthen mid-cycle resilience. For the global industrial chain, this oil shock conversely forces supply chain diversification, reducing path dependence on the Strait of Hormuz, which is beneficial for industrial security in the long run. This aligns with the assessment of the mid-cycle: short-term disruptions will eventually pass; industrial upgrade and energy transition are the core themes determining the future. This is the core meaning of "mid-cycle resilience" and key to seizing long-term opportunities.
**III. Cyclical Divergence – Industrial Value Restructuring Under Technological Impact**
If cyclical disruption is a short-term external shock, then cyclical divergence is an inevitable evolution of internal structure. The essence of the 2026 market is structural reshaping under multi-cycle resonance. The intensified divergence within tech stocks is not merely short-term sentiment fluctuation but an inevitable result of the "triple overlay" of AI technology cycle maturation, geopolitical energy shocks, and macro stagflation pressures. The core is the reselection of industrial value by cyclical forces, fully aligning with the "cycle as guide, profit as anchor" analytical framework. Unlike the aforementioned oil shock, cyclical divergence represents internal structural adjustment within the mid-cycle, with more profound implications. Its connection to the oil shock lies only in the indirect transmission of energy costs; their core logics are independent and must be clearly distinguished.
1. **Technology Cycle Shift: The Core of Divergence** Cyclical divergence is essentially the revaluation of industrial value brought by the shift in technology cycles. The broad AI rally from 2023-2025 stemmed from narrative premiums during the technology embryonic stage, where the market focused on "whether it exists" rather than "how good it is," belonging to a phase of widespread diffusion of cyclical dividends. Starting in 2026, AI technology enters a maturation and discernment phase. Cyclical dividends shift from "widespread diffusion" to "precise focus," and market logic transitions from valuation repair to earnings drive. This is the core logic of "pseudo-growth facing off against genuine growth," where profitability matters more than narrative, an inevitable law of technology cycle evolution. The globe has now entered a phase of long-term technology cycle recovery, with AI, new energy, and high-end manufacturing becoming dominant industries. Policy layouts conform to cyclical laws, anchoring long-term direction with technological self-reliance and strength. Within the AI industry specifically, divergence is already evident: in AI hardware, "picks and shovels" companies like those in chips and computing power maintain high growth with high gross margins, becoming core beneficiaries of the technology maturation stage. Conversely, traditional software/SaaS stocks face disruption from AI tools, pressure on subscription models, and unfulfilled returns on enterprise AI investment,陷入估值困境. The profitability chasm between hardware and software is clearly reflected in financial reports. This divergence is not a short-term phenomenon but a necessary stage in the technology cycle's progression from infancy to maturity, and a process where cyclical forces filter for quality assets—only enterprises with core technological barriers and the ability to deliver earnings can continuously enjoy dividends during the technology cycle shift. This is the core logic of cyclical divergence.
2. **Geopolitical Energy Shock: The Direct Catalyst for Divergence** The Hormuz oil shock, while not altering the mid-cycle main theme, acts as a short-term external variable and a direct catalyst for tech stock divergence. Its core impact is restructuring the energy consumption value logic of tech stocks, also reflecting the logic of cyclical security. The core of cyclical security is energy security and industrial resilience. Against the backdrop of short-term oil price surges and spikes in LNG and electricity prices, high energy-consumption AI infrastructure is the first affected, leading to noticeable energy consumption divergence among tech stocks. Specifically, enterprises with efficient energy allocation capabilities demonstrate stronger resilience: AI companies with their own microgrids or tied to renewable energy can effectively hedge rising energy costs, maintaining operational stability. Data centers and chip foundries reliant on traditional energy sources face hindered capacity expansion and continuously downward revised profit expectations due to high energy costs. This energy consumption divergence further intensifies the "zero-sum competition" in the semiconductor industry, where robust AI chip demand grabs significant capacity, squeezing growth space for consumer electronics and automotive chips, creating structural imbalances—a specific manifestation of cyclical divergence within sub-industries. It is important to clarify that the impact of the geopolitical energy shock on tech stock divergence is a structural adjustment caused by short-term cost transmission, not a change in the technology cycle itself. This echoes the "one-off disruption" nature of the oil shock, but their areas of impact and logical pathways are distinct and should not be confused.
3. **Macro Stagflation Pressure: The Amplifier of Divergence** Macro stagflation pressure, as the third core variable, further amplifies the divergence effect in tech stocks, strengthening the cyclical screening function. Supply-shock inflation triggered by high oil prices, combined with persistent sticky inflation, constrains loose monetary policy from global central banks and cools rate cut expectations. This is consistent with the earlier discussion on US stagflation concerns but has a more direct and structurally differentiated impact on tech stocks. The core of macro policy is balancing short-term growth stabilization with medium-to-long-term structural optimization. In the current high-interest-rate environment, the risk resistance capabilities of different types of tech assets vary significantly. Tech assets with stable cash flows and strong defensiveness can withstand the valuation pressure from high rates, showing relative stability. Conversely, tech assets with high debt, high energy consumption, and no earnings realization face both financing cost pressures from rising rates and impacts from rising energy costs, widening the gap with quality assets. Simultaneously, as global GDP growth faces pressure, geographical divergence and intra-industry divergence intertwine. Asian tech stocks are more significantly affected by rising energy import costs and shipping disruptions, while欧美tech stocks, leveraging local energy advantages and technological barriers, experience relatively moderate divergence. This multi-dimensional divergence is essentially the result of the overlay of macro cycles and industrial cycles, an inevitable manifestation of cyclical operation.
**IV. The Essence of Cyclical Divergence and Investment Implications**
The K-shaped divergence in tech stocks from 2026 onwards is an inevitable result of the "triple overlay" of AI technology cycle maturation, geopolitical energy shocks, and macro stagflation pressures. Its essence is the reconstruction of industrial value主导 by technological maturity, energy constraints, and the macroeconomic environment. This contrasts sharply with the short-term disruption of the "one-off oil shock." The former is an internal structural optimization within the mid-cycle, while the latter is an external short-term interference; they are independent yet indirectly related.
Based on the previously proposed view of "emphasizing both the new quality productive forces main theme and cyclical safety assets," the divergence within tech stocks will continue to deepen. Enterprises with full-stack AI布局 and high energy efficiency will continue to enjoy the dual红利 of the technology cycle and industrial upgrade, becoming the core winners in the cyclical divergence. Assets characterized by high energy consumption, lack of profit realization, and absence of core technology will be gradually淘汰 by the market—an inevitable selection by cyclical laws.
For investors, it is necessary to abandon the approach of broad "AI concept" allocation and instead follow cyclical laws, focusing on earnings certainty and industrial resilience. Simultaneously, one must recognize that the core of capital market reform lies in institutional foundation-building. The entry of medium-to-long-term funds will further strengthen the value investment orientation. Those quality tech enterprises possessing core technology and sustained earnings realization will become the focus of long-term capital allocation. This is also key to seizing opportunities within cyclical divergence.
In summary, cyclical operation in 2026 exhibits characteristics of "external disruptions, internal divergence." The one-off oil shock, as a short-term disruption, cannot alter the mid-cycle main themes of industrial upgrade and energy transition. This is the core reflection of "mid-cycle resilience." The industrial divergence brought by technological shock represents internal structural restructuring within the mid-cycle, determining the future distribution pattern of industrial value. Distinguishing the logical boundaries of these two phenomena and adhering to cyclical laws are essential for把握 long-term opportunities amidst short-term fluctuations and achieving stable asset allocation.
Comments