首页 500强 活动 榜单 商业 科技 商潮 专题 品牌中心
杂志订阅

高盛石油研究主管解读:市场为何预期伊朗战争将持续四周

Nick Lichtenberg
2026-03-06

市场对冲突将持续四周的判断是否准确,取决于未来的数日地缘政治局势。

文本设置
小号
默认
大号
Plus(0条)

2026年3月1日,一艘海军舰艇驶过霍尔木兹海峡。这条航道堪称全球油气运输的战略咽喉,承载着全球绝大部分油气运输量。图片来源:Sahar AL ATTAR / AFP via Getty Images

美国与以色列对伊朗发动大规模军事行动,致使伊朗最高领袖阿亚图拉·阿里·哈梅内伊身亡,全球石油市场随即受到冲击。布伦特原油价格上周末飙升8%,至每桶约78美元,这反映出市场对中东能源供应的高度担忧。不过,高盛集团(Goldman Sachs)的石油研究主管达安·斯特鲁伊文表示,当前油价恰恰揭示了交易员的押注:能源供应中断将持续约四周。

3月2日,斯特鲁伊文在《Goldman Sachs Exchanges》播客节目中剖析了市场反应背后的数学逻辑。高盛集团估算,若不存在持续供应中断,布伦特原油的公允价值约为每桶65美元。斯特鲁伊文解释道:“当前油价达到每桶78美元,意味着市场已经计入13美元的风险溢价。”根据该公司的模型,这13美元的溢价,与霍尔木兹海峡(Strait of Hormuz)完全封锁约一个月对油价的预期影响基本一致。

目前,霍尔木兹海峡,这条通常承担全球约五分之一石油供应任务的咽喉要道,并未完全关闭。斯特鲁伊文解释称,原油出口量大幅下滑,实则源于恐慌情绪。在三艘船舶受损、保险费用飙升的消息传出后,航运商与石油生产商已经进入“观望模式”。

市场定价计入的四周时间,已经成为影响全球经济的关键临界值。斯特鲁伊文指出,油价受冲击程度与供应中断时长呈“凸函数关系”。如果冲突持续时间较短——仅持续数日或一周,对油价的影响将小得多。在短期冲突的情境下,中东产油国可以将原油储存在陆地设施中,延迟交付,全球原油累计供应量不会受到影响——倘若伊朗封锁海峡,这也是一个可行的应对方案。

然而,若战争及海峡实际封锁时长超出市场预期的四周,经济后果就将不堪设想。一旦区域储油设施库容耗尽,原油生产被迫关停,市场就只能通过强制性的“需求破坏”实现再平衡。“要形成大规模的需求破坏,油价可能需要涨至三位数。”斯特鲁伊文警告道,并补充称,当前市场最关键的变量是供应中断的持续时长。原油价格每持续上涨10%,整体通胀率就会上升约0.3%,居民可支配收入也会下降同等幅度。

在斯特鲁伊文做出上述测算之际,经济学家们正在评估唐纳德·特朗普发起的“史诗怒火行动”(Operation Epic Fury)对美国经济造成的冲击。宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院(Penn Wharton)的预算模型项目主任肯特·斯梅特斯此前对《财富》杂志表示,他测算的经济损失区间跨度极大,最高或达2100亿美元。对于战争成本的常规核算方式,斯梅特斯提出一点警示。他补充道:“我认为战争成本核算存在一个问题:完全忽略了反事实情境。如果伊朗真的拥有核武器,那么我们后续在军事开支乃至城市重建上的投入,可能要多得多。”

闲置产能“受限”进一步加剧了冲突长期化的风险。斯特鲁伊文解释称,全球市场通常依赖沙特阿拉伯、阿联酋和科威特的闲置产能来缓冲油价冲击,但这些原油通常需经霍尔木兹海峡运往全球市场。因此,只要海峡航运受阻,这些闲置产能就无法实际投放市场。此外,尽管美国战略石油储备(Strategic Petroleum Reserve)是应对供应持续中断的典型方式,但当前储备量仅约4.15亿桶,较2022年能源危机前的储备量少了2亿多桶。

归根结底,市场对冲突将持续四周的判断是否准确,取决于未来的数日地缘政治局势。斯特鲁伊文正在密切关注预示冲突持续时长的信号。他指出,若美国政府提出“政权更迭”等全面目标,可能预示着一场持久战;若军事目标范围收窄,或伊朗出现改革派领导人,则可能为冲突早日结束提供契机。目前,华尔街正在为持续一个月的动荡定价,寄望于石油供应能够在油价逼近三位数前恢复。(财富中文网)

《财富》杂志记者在撰写本文时使用生成式人工智能搜索信息。本文发布前,编辑已核实信息准确性。

译者:中慧言-王芳

美国与以色列对伊朗发动大规模军事行动,致使伊朗最高领袖阿亚图拉·阿里·哈梅内伊身亡,全球石油市场随即受到冲击。布伦特原油价格上周末飙升8%,至每桶约78美元,这反映出市场对中东能源供应的高度担忧。不过,高盛集团(Goldman Sachs)的石油研究主管达安·斯特鲁伊文表示,当前油价恰恰揭示了交易员的押注:能源供应中断将持续约四周。

3月2日,斯特鲁伊文在《Goldman Sachs Exchanges》播客节目中剖析了市场反应背后的数学逻辑。高盛集团估算,若不存在持续供应中断,布伦特原油的公允价值约为每桶65美元。斯特鲁伊文解释道:“当前油价达到每桶78美元,意味着市场已经计入13美元的风险溢价。”根据该公司的模型,这13美元的溢价,与霍尔木兹海峡(Strait of Hormuz)完全封锁约一个月对油价的预期影响基本一致。

目前,霍尔木兹海峡,这条通常承担全球约五分之一石油供应任务的咽喉要道,并未完全关闭。斯特鲁伊文解释称,原油出口量大幅下滑,实则源于恐慌情绪。在三艘船舶受损、保险费用飙升的消息传出后,航运商与石油生产商已经进入“观望模式”。

市场定价计入的四周时间,已经成为影响全球经济的关键临界值。斯特鲁伊文指出,油价受冲击程度与供应中断时长呈“凸函数关系”。如果冲突持续时间较短——仅持续数日或一周,对油价的影响将小得多。在短期冲突的情境下,中东产油国可以将原油储存在陆地设施中,延迟交付,全球原油累计供应量不会受到影响——倘若伊朗封锁海峡,这也是一个可行的应对方案。

然而,若战争及海峡实际封锁时长超出市场预期的四周,经济后果就将不堪设想。一旦区域储油设施库容耗尽,原油生产被迫关停,市场就只能通过强制性的“需求破坏”实现再平衡。“要形成大规模的需求破坏,油价可能需要涨至三位数。”斯特鲁伊文警告道,并补充称,当前市场最关键的变量是供应中断的持续时长。原油价格每持续上涨10%,整体通胀率就会上升约0.3%,居民可支配收入也会下降同等幅度。

在斯特鲁伊文做出上述测算之际,经济学家们正在评估唐纳德·特朗普发起的“史诗怒火行动”(Operation Epic Fury)对美国经济造成的冲击。宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院(Penn Wharton)的预算模型项目主任肯特·斯梅特斯此前对《财富》杂志表示,他测算的经济损失区间跨度极大,最高或达2100亿美元。对于战争成本的常规核算方式,斯梅特斯提出一点警示。他补充道:“我认为战争成本核算存在一个问题:完全忽略了反事实情境。如果伊朗真的拥有核武器,那么我们后续在军事开支乃至城市重建上的投入,可能要多得多。”

闲置产能“受限”进一步加剧了冲突长期化的风险。斯特鲁伊文解释称,全球市场通常依赖沙特阿拉伯、阿联酋和科威特的闲置产能来缓冲油价冲击,但这些原油通常需经霍尔木兹海峡运往全球市场。因此,只要海峡航运受阻,这些闲置产能就无法实际投放市场。此外,尽管美国战略石油储备(Strategic Petroleum Reserve)是应对供应持续中断的典型方式,但当前储备量仅约4.15亿桶,较2022年能源危机前的储备量少了2亿多桶。

归根结底,市场对冲突将持续四周的判断是否准确,取决于未来的数日地缘政治局势。斯特鲁伊文正在密切关注预示冲突持续时长的信号。他指出,若美国政府提出“政权更迭”等全面目标,可能预示着一场持久战;若军事目标范围收窄,或伊朗出现改革派领导人,则可能为冲突早日结束提供契机。目前,华尔街正在为持续一个月的动荡定价,寄望于石油供应能够在油价逼近三位数前恢复。(财富中文网)

《财富》杂志记者在撰写本文时使用生成式人工智能搜索信息。本文发布前,编辑已核实信息准确性。

译者: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.

财富中文网所刊载内容之知识产权为财富媒体知识产权有限公司及/或相关权利人专属所有或持有。未经许可,禁止进行转载、摘编、复制及建立镜像等任何使用。
0条Plus
精彩评论
评论

撰写或查看更多评论

请打开财富Plus APP

前往打开