As tensions rise in the Strait of Hormuz, investors are actively preparing for a scenario of World War III. This narrow waterway accounts for one-fifth of global oil transportation, but recent military confrontations have significantly impacted energy markets and asset allocations.

First, attention must be paid to the current situation in the Strait of Hormuz. A few weeks ago, Iranian defense officials declared that "the strait has been closed," warning of attacks on passing ships. In reality, war risk insurance premiums have skyrocketed, and major shipping companies have announced suspension of operations. At this critical point, where normally more than 50 large tankers pass daily, the actual number of tankers passing has approached zero. GPS jamming has also been reported, and maritime transportation is physically incapacitated.

Under these circumstances, Brent crude oil surged to $82 per barrel. Major institutions like Goldman Sachs predict that if the blockade continues, prices could break through $100. This is not just about oil prices; it signals a resurgence of global inflation and complicates central bank policy decisions.

And if this truly marks the beginning of World War III, how should we adjust our asset allocations? Several prominent investors are confronting this question.

Ray Dalio has issued a warning. Amid rising geopolitical tensions, he suggests the world is approaching a "capital war." He emphasizes that the value of gold should not be judged by short-term price fluctuations. Gold is important not because it always rises, but because it has a low correlation with other financial assets. During periods of economic turmoil or credit contraction, gold tends to perform steadily, serving as a true diversification tool.

JPMorgan has increased the probability of a global recession to over 35% and is proposing defensive asset allocations. Conservative approaches such as increasing cash holdings and shortening bond maturities are being considered.

Meanwhile, Warren Buffett’s old adage is gaining renewed attention. He once stated that during major conflicts, holding cash during wartime should be avoided the most, because war tends to devalue currencies. Instead, investing in companies has historically been the best way to build wealth over time.

However, if full-scale conflict erupts, the fundamental logic of asset prices could change radically. Real assets—land, agricultural products, energy, and strategic minerals like lithium and cobalt—may be revalued. War consumes resources first, then capital.

Semiconductor and AI-related sectors are also under scrutiny. While they are growth stories in peacetime, during wartime, computing power determines command efficiency, and chips influence weapon system performance. Infrastructure such as data centers and satellite communications will quickly be integrated into national strategic frameworks.

What about cryptocurrencies? In the early stages of conflict, Bitcoin is more likely to behave not as gold but as a highly volatile tech stock. When investors rapidly reduce risk appetite, the most volatile assets are sold first. The Oxford Economics Institute predicts that if the conflict persists for more than two months, global stock markets could see a 15-20% correction. Bitcoin could very well be caught in that wave.

However, if the clash escalates into a full-scale global war and parts of the traditional financial system become dysfunctional, the role of cryptocurrencies will fundamentally change. In an environment where capital controls tighten and cross-border payment restrictions increase, the value transfer capabilities on blockchain will be reevaluated. At that point, the question will shift from "bull or bear market" to "who can still freely settle and convert funds."

Ultimately, the waters of the Strait of Hormuz are still turbulent, and the scenario of World War III is not just a hypothesis but a tangible risk that investors must seriously consider. Asset allocation optimization is no longer solely about returns; we have entered an era where strategic positioning must account for broader existential risks.