Cannons and Tickers - Part III

In partnership with

The 21st century has seen the nature of conflict evolve beyond traditional kinetic warfare. While conventional military engagements still occur, nations increasingly wield economic and digital weapons to achieve geopolitical aims. These new frontiers of conflict—namely, trade wars and cyber warfare—pose distinct and, in some cases, more insidious risks to financial markets. The historical playbook derived from past military conflicts may be an inadequate guide for these modern forms of confrontation.

A Private Circle for High-Net-Worth Peers

Long Angle is a private, vetted community for high-net-worth entrepreneurs, executives, and professionals across multiple industries. No membership fees.

Connect with primarily self-made, 30-55-year-olds ($5M-$100M net worth) in confidential discussions, peer advisory groups, and live meetups.

Access curated alternative investments like private equity and private credit. With $100M+ invested annually, leverage collective expertise and scale to capture unique opportunities.

Apply to Join

The Trade War Playbook

Trade wars, waged through tariffs, sanctions, and other protectionist measures, represent a unique form of economic conflict. Unlike a traditional war, which can stimulate domestic production through government spending, a trade war directly attacks the core tenets of global economic efficiency. Its impact on stock markets is transmitted through a clear and overwhelmingly negative set of mechanisms.

Mechanisms of Market Impact

The channels through which trade wars harm equity markets are direct and potent¹:

• Rising Corporate Costs: When tariffs are imposed on imported goods, particularly raw materials like steel and aluminum or critical intermediate components, U.S. manufacturers face higher input costs. This directly compresses their profit margins, unless they can pass these costs on to consumers, which is often difficult in competitive markets. This is especially damaging to the large multinational corporations of the S&P 500, whose global supply chains are optimized for efficiency, not for navigating a patchwork of tariffs.

• Retaliation and Lost Exports: Tariffs are never a one-way street. When one country imposes them, its trading partners inevitably retaliate with their own duties on the first country's goods. This directly harms exporters, from agricultural producers to manufacturers of high-tech equipment, by making their products less competitive in foreign markets. The resulting drop in sales and revenue weighs heavily on the stock prices of affected companies.

• Pervasive Uncertainty and Volatility: Perhaps most damaging is the uncertainty that trade wars generate. When businesses cannot predict future trade policy, they become cautious, delaying capital investment and hiring decisions. This hesitation slows overall economic growth, which in turn lowers earnings expectations for publicly traded companies. This policy-driven uncertainty is a major source of market volatility, as investors react nervously to every political statement and tariff announcement.

• Negative Investor Sentiment: The "risk-off" sentiment engendered by a trade war often prompts investors to rotate out of stocks and into safer assets. This is particularly true for cyclical sectors like technology, industrials, and energy, which are most sensitive to the health of global trade and economic growth.

Sanctions as a Weapon: The Russia Case Study

The economic sanctions imposed on Russia following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine represent the most extensive use of this tool in modern history. The sanctions were designed to cripple the Russian economy by targeting its financial, military, and energy sectors and, most critically, by restricting its access to Western technology and the U.S. dollar payment system.

The initial impact was severe. The Russian ruble collapsed, forcing the central bank to hike its key interest rate to 20% to stave off a full-blown financial crisis, and the Moscow stock exchange was closed. However, the Russian economy proved more resilient than many Western analysts had predicted. This resilience was due to three main factors: a rapid transition to a wartime economy with massive state spending on military production; continued high revenues from energy exports to non-sanctioning nations; and a successful and rapid pivot in trade away from Europe and towards countries like China, India, and Turkey.

While the sanctions have imposed significant long-term costs on Russia's economic potential, their immediate failure to deliver a knockout blow highlights a critical long-term risk for the West. The weaponization of finance and trade is accelerating the fragmentation of the global economy. By forcing Russia to build alternative trade routes and payment systems with other non-aligned powers, the sanctions are actively fostering the creation of a parallel economic bloc. This trend, if it continues, could over time erode the dominance of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency and diminish the effectiveness of future sanctions regimes.

The immediate market impact of trade wars and sanctions may be negative volatility, but the more profound and lasting consequence is the costly and inefficient re-wiring of the global economic system. The era of hyper-globalization, characterized by "just-in-time" supply chains optimized for maximum efficiency, is giving way to an era of geopolitical blocs and "just-in-case" supply chains built for resilience through on-shoring or "friend-shoring". This structural shift is inherently inflationary and less productive than the system it is replacing. It will likely act as a persistent, low-level headwind for corporate profitability and global growth for decades to come, a long-term risk that markets are only beginning to price.

Cyber Warfare and Systemic Financial Risk

Of all the evolving forms of conflict, cyber warfare represents the most novel and potentially the most catastrophic threat to the global financial system. Unlike conventional wars or economic shocks that impact asset valuations, a major cyberattack threatens the fundamental operational integrity of the market infrastructure itself. The historical resilience of markets to past shocks offers no reliable guide for this unprecedented type of threat. International financial bodies like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB) now view a systemic cyber event not as a question of if, but when.

The Nature and Scale of the Threat

The danger posed by cyberattacks is growing exponentially in both frequency and sophistication. The number of malicious cyber incidents has nearly doubled since the COVID-19 pandemic began. The financial sector is a prime target, accounting for nearly one-fifth of all reported incidents over the past two decades, with banks being the most frequent victims. The direct financial losses are staggering, totaling almost $12 billion for financial firms since 2004, with $2.5 billion of that occurring since 2020 alone.² However, these figures vastly understate the true cost, as they do not include indirect losses from reputational damage, increased security spending, lower productivity, and lost business. The risk of extreme "tail-risk" losses is also increasing; one IMF analysis noted that the probability of severe incidents causing losses of at least $2.5 billion has risen significantly.

The most dangerous threat, however, is not simply financial theft. It is the risk of an attack that corrupts the integrity of financial data. An incident that alters transaction records, falsifies account balances, or manipulates trading algorithms could instantly shatter the trust that is the absolute bedrock of the financial system.

Systemic Risk and Financial Stability

The highly interconnected and digitized nature of modern finance makes it uniquely vulnerable to contagion. A successful attack on a single, critical institution—or, more likely, on a key third-party service provider like a clearinghouse, a major cloud provider, or the SWIFT payment messaging system—could have cascading effects that ripple through the entire global system.

Recognizing this danger, the FSB and the IMF have both formally identified a major cyber incident as a top-tier threat to global financial stability. An April 2024 IMF report warned that while cyber incidents have not yet been systemic, a severe event "could pose an acute threat to macrofinancial stability through a loss of confidence, the disruption of critical services, and because of technological and financial interconnectedness". Further research from the New York Fed has shown that the systemic impact of a cyberattack would be significantly amplified if it occurred during a period of pre-existing financial stress, when the system is already volatile and liquidity is strained.

Market Impact and Investor Blind Spots

At the individual company level, the market reaction to a cyberattack is swift and punitive. When Capital One disclosed a major data breach, its stock fell nearly 6% in after-hours trading. Following its 2017 breach, Equifax saw its share price plummet by 60%.³

However, at a broader market level, there is evidence that this critical risk is not being fully priced in by investors. Academic research indicates that firms with poor cybersecurity postures—those with numerous known and exploitable vulnerabilities—consistently underperform their more secure peers. Yet the market does not seem to fully discount this risk in advance, suggesting a significant market inefficiency. This creates a dangerous situation where investors are holding uncompensated risk, and a systemic shock could trigger a violent and disorderly repricing.

The established "geopolitical shock playbook"—an initial dip, a flight to safety, and an eventual recovery based on economic fundamentals—is utterly inadequate for modeling the impact of a true systemic cyber event. Past shocks, from Pearl Harbor to 9/11, caused market closures and economic disruption, but the underlying assets and the systems for trading and settling them remained fundamentally intact. Recovery was a matter of restoring economic confidence.

A successful, data-corrupting attack on a central node of the financial system would be entirely different. It would not be an economic shock to be weathered, but a fundamental failure of the market's plumbing. The crisis would be one of mechanics and confidence, not economics. If participants cannot trust their data, verify ownership of assets, or settle their trades, the market simply ceases to function. It would not be a "dip" or a "correction," but a full stop, a freeze potentially far worse and longer-lasting than the six-month closure in 1914. This is a true "black swan" event for which historical data provides no comfort and no guide. The market's learned resilience to conventional shocks becomes a catastrophic vulnerability in the face of a threat that could break the game itself.

Strategic Implications for YAINers

The historical relationship between war and the stock market is a tapestry of paradoxes and counterintuitive truths. A comprehensive analysis reveals that the conventional wisdom is often wrong. Panic selling at the sound of the first cannon has been a historically poor strategy, as markets have consistently demonstrated a capacity for resilience that defies the grim reality of armed conflict. This report has demonstrated that this resilience is not mystical, but is rooted in tangible economic forces and evolving psychological patterns.

The primary conclusion of this analysis is that stock market performance during wartime is dictated less by the ebb and flow of battlefield events and more by the conflict's second-order effects on the underlying economy. The most critical variables are the war's impact on inflation, the nature of the government's fiscal and monetary policy response, and the pre-existing state of the economic cycle. A war that provides a Keynesian boost to a depressed economy can be bullish; a war that triggers a supply-side shock in an inflationary environment is bearish. The context is paramount.

Furthermore, the very definition of conflict is expanding. The 21st century is increasingly being shaped by economic and digital warfare. Trade wars waged with tariffs and sanctions, and cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure, present new and complex risks for which the historical playbook of kinetic wars may be an insufficient guide.

The "Buy the Cannons" Adage Revisited

The famous 19th-century maxim, "Buy on the sound of cannons, sell on the sound of trumpets", is often misinterpreted as a simple tactical command. This analysis refines its meaning. It is not a call for blind, reflexive buying at the first sign of conflict. Rather, it is a sophisticated, contrarian philosophy about capitalizing on the peak of fear and uncertainty. The strategy has proven successful when a conflict-driven panic creates value in assets that are ultimately supported by the war's net economic consequences (e.g., fiscal stimulus outweighing disruption). It has failed when the conflict's primary effect is to trigger a recession or a stagflationary spiral. It should be understood as a call to assess whether panic has created a dislocation between price and long-term value, not as a simple trading signal.

Ultimately, history teaches that while the path through periods of conflict is fraught with volatility and fear, the long-term trajectory of markets is driven by human ingenuity, economic growth, and the enduring ability of well-run companies to adapt and create value. For a YAINer, maintaining a disciplined, evidence-based approach and focusing on the underlying economic fundamentals, rather than the dramatic but often fleeting geopolitical headlines, remains the most prudent course.

1  How a Global Trade War Hurts the U.S. Stock Market | Poole Thought Leadership, https://poole.ncsu.edu/thought-leadership/article/how-a-global-trade-war-hurts-the-u-s-stock-market/

2  Global Financial Stability Report, April 2024, Chapter 3: “Cyber Risk - International Monetary Fund (IMF), https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/GFSR/2024/April/English/ch3.ashx

3  The Impact of Information Security Events on the Stock Market - ISTARI Global, https://istari-global.com/insights/spotlight/the-impact-of-security-events-stock-market/