For years, gold has been considered a store of value. As a physical commodity, it cannot be printed like money, and its value is not impacted by interest rate decisions made by a government. Because gold has historically maintained its value over time, it serves as a form of insurance against adverse economic events.
When an adverse event occurs that lingers for a while, investors tend to pile their funds into gold, which drives up its price due to increased demand. There have been many instances in our history, where war has ignited investment into gold. One particular moment in the 21 st century which signaled a strong movement into gold as a safe haven was the unfortunate event which occurred on 9/11.
Another was the Global Financial Crisis in 2008. In both instances gold’s price sored and it returned higher profits than any other financial asset. It’s important to understand at this stage, even though gold has these unique characteristics, it is not a long-term solution for a portfolio hedge or as a safe heaven.
Negative news tends to come after more negative news, which changes investor behaviors and tends to worry investors who in turn would sell their positions in gold, thus sending the price down to original levels or even lower. Some Key Points Safe haven investments offer protection from market downswings. Precious metals, currencies, and stocks from particular sectors have been identified as safe havens in the past.
Safe havens in one period of market volatility may react differently in another, so there is no consistent safe haven other than portfolio diversity. Latest Price Action Prior to Russia’s intentions of an invasion into Ukraine and fears of war, which is creating upheaval in the political landscape in Europe and around the world, gold was steadily rising in a sideways movement. However this past week you would have noticed a sharp price action jump 3% from $1892.00 to $1973.00 USD (see below), a price that we haven’t seen since 1 st of January 2021 and there is a strong feeling that it could push past this figure as Russia ramps up its invasion into eastern Ukraine.
If this happens, we could start to see higher highs as a result, as investors are spooked by the potential turmoil and destabilization. Gold or XAUUSD, can be accessible in different forms. You can purchase gold bullion in a number of ways: through an online dealer, or even a local dealer or collector.
A pawn shop may also sell gold. You are advised to note gold's spot price – the price per ounce right now in the market – as you're buying, so that you can make a fair deal. You could also find access to gold in the following ways: Gold Futures, ETFs that own gold, Mining Stocks, ETFs that own mining stocks, or you if you wish to trade it, you could use CFDs, where you can trade the value of the shiny metal when it goes up or down.
Visit our website here to get started with a CFD trading account and start taking advantage of opportunities. Sources: www.bankrate.com, Investopedia, Tradingview.
By
GO Markets
The information provided is of general nature only and does not take into account your personal objectives, financial situations or needs. Before acting on any information provided, you should consider whether the information is suitable for you and your personal circumstances and if necessary, seek appropriate professional advice. All opinions, conclusions, forecasts or recommendations are reasonably held at the time of compilation but are subject to change without notice. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Go Markets Pty Ltd, ABN 85 081 864 039, AFSL 254963 is a CFD issuer, and trading carries significant risks and is not suitable for everyone. You do not own or have any interest in the rights to the underlying assets. You should consider the appropriateness by reviewing our TMD, FSG, PDS and other CFD legal documents to ensure you understand the risks before you invest in CFDs. These documents are available here.
US-Israeli strikes on Iran launched on 28 February sent Brent crude surging past US$119 a barrel, gold above US$5,200, and defence stocks to all-time highs.
Against that backdrop, investors are focusing on a small group of commodity-linked names that may remain sensitive to further moves in oil, LNG and gold. The key question is whether the shock proves sustained, or whether a ceasefire, shipping normalisation, or policy action removes part of the geopolitical risk premium.
1. ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM)
ExxonMobil has been one of the clearest beneficiaries of the price surge. Shares hit a record high of US$159.60 in early March and are up approximately 28% year-to-date.
The company produces 4.7 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, has a Permian Basin breakeven of around US$35/barrel, and is committed to US$20 billion in buybacks for 2026.
Wells Fargo raised its price target to US$183 from US$156 following the escalation, while broader analyst consensus sits around US$140–$144. However, XOM is already trading above many consensus targets, and disruption to its LNG partner QatarEnergy poses a near-term operational headwind.
Chevron touched a new 52-week high of US$196.76 in early March and has risen approximately 24% year-to-date.
The company's Brent breakeven for dividends and capital expenditure sits around US$50/barrel. This means that at current Oil prices above US$90, it is generating significant free cash flow.
However, Chevron has temporarily halted operations at a gas field off Israel's coast following missile activity in the region, and the stock has since pulled back more than 1% as the conflict directly affects its operations.
What to watch
Direct operational updates from Chevron's Middle East and Israeli assets.
Any further halts that could weigh on near-term production.
With Qatar having halted output after Iranian drone strikes, buyers across Asia and Europe are scrambling for alternative supply. Woodside, as one of Australia's largest LNG producers and exporters, sits outside the conflict zone and is well-positioned to benefit from rerouted demand.
Analysts caution that actual substitution takes time due to shipping and contract constraints, meaning the price uplift may be more durable than a simple spot trade. European TTF benchmark gas prices surged over 50% in a week, amplifying the margin environment for non-Middle Eastern LNG producers.
What to watch
The pace and timeline of any Qatar LNG production restart.
If QatarEnergy remains offline for weeks, Woodside could begin re-contracting European buyers at elevated spot prices.
An Australian dollar move higher could be a headwind worth tracking for USD-denominated earnings.
4. Cheniere Energy (NYSE: LNG)
Alongside Woodside, Cheniere is the most direct US beneficiary of the Qatar LNG disruption. As the largest LNG exporter in the United States, it saw intraday strength at the start of the conflict week.
US domestic energy production has buffered American consumers from the worst of the shock, but the export premium has widened as European and Asian buyers pay up for non-Gulf supply.
The trade is "geopolitically sensitive," and any resolution could reverse upside quickly. But for as long as Hormuz and Gulf gas infrastructure remain compromised, Cheniere is positioned to benefit structurally.
What to watch
Any diplomatic breakthrough that reopens Gulf shipping lanes.
Announcements of new long-term offtake contracts signed at current elevated prices.
Gold surged 5.2% in a single session on 1 March, touching US$5,246/oz, as markets sought safe-haven assets. Newmont, the world's largest gold producer, has seen its reserves effectively revalued at these prices.
It is up alongside gold's 24% year-to-date gain, and its all-in sustaining costs remain largely fixed.
However, Gold miners sold off sharply on 4 March, and Newmont fell nearly 8% in a single session as broader risk-off deleveraging hit precious metals equities.
The stock has recovered since, but volatility remains high. For longer-duration investors, analysts note that "safe" mining jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia, and Nevada are commanding fresh premiums as Middle East instability raises the value of geopolitically secure supply.
What to watch
Whether gold can hold above US$5,000/oz.
A prolonged conflict could accelerate an M&A cycle in junior gold miners.
A ceasefire or broad equity deleveraging event as the primary risk to monitor.
Lockheed Martin reached a new all-time high of US$676.70 on 3 March, up over 4% for the day. Its F-35 fighters, precision-guided munitions, THAAD systems, and HIMARS rocket artillery are central to the ongoing air campaign.
The US Department of Defence is moving to replenish munitions stockpiles, and Trump's stated ambition to raise the US defence budget to US$1.5 trillion by 2027 adds a longer-term structural tailwind beyond the immediate conflict.
Defence stocks are rising amid classic geopolitical risk pricing, but investors should note that actual contract flow takes time to translate into earnings, and valuations already reflect considerable optimism.
What to watch
The pace of US Department of Defence munitions replenishment orders.
How quickly contract wins translate into backlog growth.
Barrick is tracking gold's historic run alongside Newmont, with the stock up sharply year-to-date. It sits at a roughly US$78 billion market capitalisation and is reporting record free cash flow projections as its all-in sustaining costs remain well below current spot prices.
Like Newmont, it experienced a sharp single-session selloff of more than 8% during the broader 4 March deleveraging event, before partially recovering.
Royalty and streaming companies such as Wheaton Precious Metals (WPM) are being favoured by some investors as a more inflation-protected way to access gold upside, given their lower operational cost exposure. But Barrick remains one of the world’s largest listed gold miners, with earnings that are highly sensitive to changes in the gold price
What to watch
Gold's ability to hold above US$5,000/oz.
Any Barrick moves toward junior miner acquisitions.
Energy cost inflation, as rising fuel prices could begin to squeeze miner operating margins.
The latest move in oil has put energy names back in focus. Over the past six months, Exxon Mobil and Baker Hughes have outperformed Brent crude on a normalised basis, Chevron has remained broadly constructive, SLB has lagged the commodity and Woodside's broker consensus has been more measured.
When crude moves, the impact rarely stays contained to the commodity itself. Higher oil prices can affect inflation expectations, shipping costs and corporate margins across the global economy.
What the latest move is showing
There are three broad ways companies can benefit from firmer oil prices:
Producing oil and gas, by selling the commodity at a higher price
Providing services and equipment to producers
Transporting oil around the world
Each of the names below represents one of those exposure types, with a different risk profile when crude rises.
1. Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM)
Over the past six months, Exxon Mobil has outperformed Brent crude, with its share price up nearly 35% compared with about 30% for Brent. As of 11 March 2026, both were trading just over 3% below their all-time highs, while Exxon remained closer to its 52-week high.
Exxon Mobil is one of the world's largest integrated oil companies, with exposure spanning exploration, production, refining and chemicals. When oil prices rise, its upstream business may benefit from wider margins, while its scale and diversification can help cushion weaker parts of the cycle.
Exxon Mobil (XOM) vs. Brent Crude 3-month performance
Exxon Mobil and Brent crude normalised performance over six months, as of 11 March 2026 at the time of writing | Source: Share Trader
Analyst consensus: Buy
According to TradingView data, analyst sentiment towards Exxon is broadly positive. Of the 31 analysts tracked, 15 rate the stock Strong Buy or Buy, 13 rate it Hold, 1 rates it Sell and 2 rate it Strong Sell.
That positive view is linked to Exxon's balance sheet strength and higher-margin production. The most optimistic analysts project a 1-year price target as high as US$183.00. The average price target is US$145.00, which sits about 3.6% below the current trading price.
Exxon Mobil analyst ratings and price targets, as of 11 March 2026 at the time of writing | Source: TradingView
2. Chevron (NYSE: CVX)
Chevron is another global integrated major that has benefited from the recent move higher in crude, with its shares trading near 52-week highs. Like Exxon, Chevron operates across the value chain, including upstream production, refining and marketing.
Chevron's completed acquisition of Hess adds Guyana and other upstream assets, which some analysts see as supportive over time. That said, the earnings impact remains subject to integration, project execution and commodity price risks.
Exxon Mobil vs Chevron performance, 6-month chart
Chevron and Exxon Mobil normalised performance over six months, as of 11 March 2026 at the time of writing | Source: Share Trader
Analyst consensus: Buy
Chevron is viewed similarly to Exxon, with broker sentiment remaining broadly constructive. Recent TradingView aggregates show 30 analysts covering the stock over the past three months, with 17 rating it Strong Buy or Buy, 11 at Hold, 1 at Sell and 1 at Strong Sell.
Analysts have highlighted Chevron's diversified portfolio and the potential contribution from Hess, although commodity price volatility and execution risk may keep some more cautious.
Chevron analyst ratings and price targets, as of 11 March 2026 at the time of writing | Source: TradingView
3. SLB (NYSE: SLB)
SLB, previously known as Schlumberger, is one of the world's largest oilfield services and technology providers. It supplies tools, equipment and software that help producers find, drill and complete wells more efficiently.
Over the past six months, SLB has lagged Brent crude, with the share price trading in a choppier range and remaining below its recent peak. That suggests the stronger oil backdrop has not been fully reflected in the share price.
That pattern is not unusual for oilfield services companies, where customer spending decisions often follow moves in the underlying commodity rather than move in lockstep with them. Any future re-rating would depend on factors including producer capital spending, contract timing, service pricing, offshore activity and broader market conditions. A firmer oil price should not be assumed to translate automatically into a firmer SLB share price.
SLB vs Brent crude, 1-month normalised performance
SLB and Brent crude normalised performance over six months, as of 11 March 2026 at the time of writing | Source: Share Trader
Consensus: Buy
According to TradingView data, third-party analyst consensus on SLB is Buy. Of the 33 analysts covering the stock, 27 rate it Strong Buy or Buy, 4 rate it Hold and 2 rate it Sell or Strong Sell.
That indicates constructive broker sentiment, although the gap between oil prices and SLB's recent share-price performance suggests investors may still want clearer evidence of improving service demand and pricing before the stock fully reflects the stronger commodity backdrop.
SLB analyst ratings and price targets, as of 11 March 2026 at the time of writing | Source: TradingView
4. Baker Hughes (NASDAQ: BKR)
Baker Hughes is another major oilfield services and equipment provider, with additional exposure to industrial segments such as LNG and power infrastructure. Even when oil prices are not at extreme highs, advances in drilling technology and lower break-even costs have helped keep many shale plays profitable, supporting demand for its services.
The company has also been described as well positioned because of its balance sheet and its exposure to ongoing exploration and production activity. In a period of higher, or even stable-to-firm, oil prices, that mix of services and energy technology may create several revenue drivers.
Over the past six months, Baker Hughes has materially outperformed Brent crude on a normalised basis. Brent traded in a much tighter range for most of the period before moving higher late, while BKR climbed more steadily and reached a significantly stronger cumulative gain. That suggests BKR's share price benefited not only from the backdrop in oil, but also from company-specific optimism and broader support for oilfield services and energy technology names.
BKR vs Brent crude, 6-month normalised performance
Baker Hughes and Brent crude normalised performance over six months, as of 11 March 2026 at the time of writing | Source: Share Trader
Analyst consensus: Buy
According to TradingView data, Baker Hughes is categorised as Strong Buy. Based on 25 analysts who provided ratings over the past three months, 16 rated the stock Strong Buy, 3 rated it Buy, 4 rated it Hold, 1 rated it Sell and 1 rated it Strong Sell.
Overall, broker sentiment towards Baker Hughes is broadly positive, with more than three quarters of covering analysts rating the stock either Strong Buy or Buy, while most of the remainder were at Hold. That supportive analyst view appears to reflect BKR's exposure to both traditional oilfield services and broader energy and industrial technology markets, including LNG infrastructure.
Baker Hughes analyst ratings and price targets, as of 11 March 2026 at the time of writing | Source: TradingView
5. Woodside Energy (ASX: WDS)
Woodside Energy gives the list an Australia-based producer with significant exposure to LNG and oil markets. Its earnings are closely tied to realised commodity prices, which makes the stock sensitive to shifts in crude and gas pricing, as well as broader global energy demand.
Compared with some of the larger US energy names, broker sentiment towards Woodside appears more measured. Investors are balancing the company's global LNG exposure and leverage to stronger energy prices against softer recent realised prices, project and execution risks, and longer-term regulatory and decarbonisation pressures.
Analyst consensus: Hold
According to TradingView data, Woodside is rated Neutral/Hold. Of 15 analysts, 2 rate it Strong Buy, 4 rate it Buy, 7 rate it Hold, 1 rates it Sell and 1 rates it Strong Sell.
The average 12-month price target is A$29.20 versus a current price of about A$30.28, implying downside of roughly 3.6%. Relative to the larger US energy names in this list, that points to a more cautious broker view.
Woodside Energy analyst ratings and price targets, as of 11 March 2026 at the time of writing | Source: TradingView
6. Global oil tanker operators
Oil tanker companies can benefit when firmer oil prices, OPEC+ policy shifts and geopolitical tension increase long-distance shipments and disrupt usual trade routes. When oil volumes travel further, 'tonne-mile' demand can support tanker day rates and profitability even when the broader energy market is volatile.
Analyst consensus: N/A
This is a broader industry category rather than a single publicly traded stock, so there is no single broker consensus to cite. Analyst views would need to be assessed at the company level, such as Frontline plc (FRO), Euronav (EURN) or Scorpio Tankers (STNG).
More broadly, the sector is cyclical. Any benefit from tighter shipping markets can reverse if routes normalise, freight rates fall or supply increases.
Risks and constraints
Higher oil prices do not remove risk for these names.
If prices rise too far, too fast, demand destruction and policy responses can weigh on future earnings.
Political decisions from OPEC+ or other major producers can reverse a rally by increasing supply.
Services and tanker companies are highly cyclical. When the cycle turns, pricing power can fade quickly.
Company-specific issues, including project execution, realised pricing and capital spending, still matter.
Taken together, these names may benefit from firmer oil prices, but they also carry sector-specific, geopolitical and company-level risks that deserve close attention.
Key market observations
Woodside provides LNG and oil exposure, although current broker sentiment is more neutral than for the larger US names.
Tanker operators may benefit when freight markets tighten, though that trade remains highly cyclical and route-dependent.
SLB and Baker Hughes may benefit if firmer oil prices translate into more drilling and completion activity, but the share-price response has been mixed.
Exxon Mobil and Chevron offer direct exposure to stronger upstream margins, supported by diversified operations.
References in this article to Exxon Mobil, Chevron, SLB, Baker Hughes, Woodside, tanker operators, analyst consensus ratings and price targets are included for general market commentary only and do not constitute a recommendation or offer in relation to any financial product or security. Third-party data, including consensus ratings and target prices, may change without notice and should not be relied on in isolation. Energy and shipping exposures are cyclical and can be materially affected by commodity price volatility, realised pricing, production changes, project execution, geopolitical disruptions, freight market conditions, regulatory developments and shifts in investor sentiment. Any views about potential beneficiaries of higher oil prices are subject to significant uncertainty.
For over 110 years, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) has operated at a deliberate distance from the White House and Congress.
It is the only federal agency that doesn’t report to any single branch of government in the way most agencies do, and can implement policy without waiting for political approval.
These policies include interest rate decisions, adjusting the money supply, emergency lending to banks, capital reserve requirements for banks, and determining which financial institutions require heightened oversight.
The Fed can act independently on all these critical economic decisions and more.
But why does the US government enable this? And why is it that nearly every major economy has adopted a similar model for their central bank?
The foundation of Fed independence: the panic of 1907
The Fed was established in 1913 following the Panic of 1907, a major financial crisis. It saw major banks collapse, the stock market drop nearly 50%, and credit markets freeze across the country.
At the time, the US had no central authority to inject liquidity into the banking system during emergencies or to prevent cascading bank failures from toppling the entire economy.
J.P. Morgan personally orchestrated a bailout using his own fortune, highlighting just how fragile the US financial system had become.
The debate that followed revealed that while the US clearly needed a central bank, politicians were objectively seen as poorly positioned to run it.
Previous attempts at central banking had failed partly due to political interference. Presidents and Congress had used monetary policy to serve short-term political goals rather than long-term economic stability.
So it was decided that a stand-alone body responsible for making all major economic decisions would be created. Essentially, the Fed was created because politicians, who face elections and public pressure, couldn’t be relied upon to make unpopular decisions when needed for the long-term economy.
Although the Fed is designed to be an autonomous body, separate from political influence, it still has accountability to the US government (and thereby US voters).
The President is responsible for appointing the Fed Chair and the seven Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, subject to confirmation by the Senate.
Each Governor serves a 14-year term, and the Chair serves a four-year term. The Governors' terms are staggered to prevent any single administration from being able to change the entire board overnight.
Beyond this “main” board, there are twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks that operate across the country. Their presidents are appointed by private-sector boards and approved by the Fed's seven Governors. Five of these presidents vote on interest rates at any given time, alongside the seven Governors.
This creates a decentralised structure where no single person or political party can dictate monetary policy. Changing the Fed's direction requires consensus across multiple appointees from different administrations.
The case for Fed independence: Nixon, Burns, and the inflation hangover
The strongest argument for keeping the Fed independent comes from Nixon’s time as president in the 1970s.
Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns to keep interest rates low in the lead-up to the 1972 election. Burns complied, and Nixon won in a landslide. Over the next decade, unemployment and inflation both rose simultaneously (commonly referred to now as “stagflation”).
By the late 1970s, inflation exceeded 13 per cent, Nixon was out of office, and it was time to appoint a new Fed chair.
That new Fed chair was Paul Volcker. And despite public and political pressure to bring down interest rates and reduce unemployment, he pushed the rate up to more than 19 per cent to try to break inflation.
The decision triggered a brutal recession, with unemployment hitting nearly 11 per cent.
But by the mid-1980s, inflation had dropped back into the low single digits.
Pre-Volcker era inflation vs Volcker era inflation | FRED
Volcker stood firm where non-independent politicians would have backflipped in the face of plummeting poll numbers.
The “Volcker era” is now taught as a masterclass in why central banks need independence. The painful medicine worked because the Fed could withstand political backlash that would have broken a less autonomous institution.
Are other central banks independent?
Nearly every major developed economy has an independent central bank. The European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, Bank of England, Bank of Canada, and Reserve Bank of Australia all operate with similar autonomy from their governments as the Fed.
However, there are examples of developed nations that have moved away from independent central banks.
In Turkey, the president forced its central bank to maintain low rates even as inflation soared past 85 per cent. The decision served short-term political goals while devastating the purchasing power of everyday people.
Argentina's recurring economic crises have been exacerbated by monetary policy subordinated to political needs. Venezuela's hyperinflation accelerated after the government asserted greater control over its central bank.
The pattern tends to show that the more control the government has over monetary policy, the more the economy leans toward instability and higher inflation.
Independent central banks may not be perfect, but they have historically outperformed the alternative.
Turkey’s interest rates dropped in 2022 despite inflation skyrocketing
Why do markets care about Fed independence?
Markets generally prefer predictability, and independent central banks make more predictable decisions.
Fed officials often outline how they plan to adjust policy and what their preferred data points are.
Currently, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly jobs reports, and quarterly GDP releases form expectations about the future path of interest rates.
This transparency and predictability help businesses map out investments, banks to set lending rates, and everyday people to plan major financial decisions.
When political influence infiltrates these decisions, it introduces uncertainty. Instead of following predictable patterns based on publicly released data, interest rates can shift based on electoral considerations or political preference, which makes long-term planning more difficult.
The markets react to this uncertainty through stock price volatility, potential bond yield rises, and fluctuating currency values.
The enduring logic
The independence of the Federal Reserve is about recognising that stable money and sustainable growth require institutions capable of making unpopular decisions when economic fundamentals demand them.
Elections will always create pressure for easier monetary conditions. Inflation will always tempt policymakers to delay painful adjustments. And the political calendar will never align perfectly with economic cycles.
Fed independence exists to navigate these eternal tensions, not perfectly, but better than political control has managed throughout history.
That's why this principle, forged in financial panics and refined through successive crises, remains central to how modern economies function. And it's why debates about central bank independence, whenever they arise, touch something fundamental about how democracies can maintain long-term prosperity.
ASX defence stocks are back on more watchlists and according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military spending reached approximately US$2.718 trillion in 2024, up 9.4% in real terms.
Australia’s current defence settings are set out in the 2024 National Defence Strategy and related investment planning documents, which outline long-term capability funding priorities. Furthermore, Canberra has pointed to A$330 billion of capability investment through 2034, including added funding for surface combatants, preparedness, long-range strike and autonomous systems.
Here is the part most people miss: not all ASX defence stocks are the same trade. Some sit close to naval shipbuilding. Some are counter-drone names and some are smaller, higher-risk operators where one contract may matter much more than the market assumes.
These five names are not a buy list, rather they are a practical watchlist for investors trying to understand where procurement momentum may actually show up on the ASX.
1) Austal (ASX: ASB)
Austal is one of the ASX-listed companies most directly exposed to Australia’s naval shipbuilding pipeline, although contract execution, margins and delivery timing remain important variables.
They aren't just winning random contracts; they have signed a massive legal agreement (the Strategic Shipbuilding Agreement) that makes them the official partner for building Australia's next generation of mid-sized military ships in Western Australia.
In February 2026, the government gave Austal the green light on a $4 billion project. This isn't for just one ship, it’s for 8 "Landing Craft Heavy" vessels. These are huge transport ships (about 100 metres long) designed to carry heavy tanks and equipment directly onto a beach. But here is the part most people miss, shipbuilding is a marathon, not a sprint.
As you can see in the delivery timeline, while construction starts in 2026, the final ship won't be delivered until 2038. For an investor, this means Austal has a "guaranteed" stream of income for the next 12 years, but they have to be very good at managing their costs over that long period to actually make a profit.
2) DroneShield (ASX: DRO)
If you have seen footage of small drones disrupting modern battlefields, DroneShield is building part of the "off switch". Its focus is counter-drone technology, including systems that detect, disrupt or defeat drones using electronic warfare, sensors and software-led tools, rather than relying only on traditional munitions.
By early 2026, DroneShield had moved beyond the label of a promising start-up and into a much larger commercial phase. It reported FY2025 revenue of A$216.5 million, up 276% from FY2024, and said it started FY2026 with A$103.5 million in committed revenue.
One point the market may overlook is the software layer in the model. DroneShield reported A$11.6 million in Software as a Service (SaaS) revenue in FY2025 and said it is working towards SaaS making up 30% of revenue within five years. Its subscription model includes software updates for deployed systems, which adds a growing stream of recurring revenue alongside hardware sales.
Among ASX defence stocks, DroneShield is one of the most direct ways to follow the counter-UAS theme. It is also one of the names where sentiment can swing quickly, because growth stories can rerate both up and down when order timing changes.
EOS builds both the "brain" and the "muscle" for military platforms. It is best known for remote weapon systems, which allow operators to control armed turrets from inside protected vehicles, and for high-energy laser systems aimed at counter-drone defence. EOS has said its unconditional backlog reached about A$459.1 million in early 2026, following a series of contract wins through 2025. That points to a much larger base of secured work, although delivery timing and revenue conversion still matter.
EOS signed a €71.4 million, about A$125 million, contract with a European customer for a 100-kilowatt high-energy laser weapon system. EOS says the system is designed for a low cost per shot and can engage up to 20 drones a minute. The Australian Government has set aside A$1.3 billion over 10 years for counter-drone capability acquisition, and EOS has disclosed that it was part of a successful LAND 156 bid team. That does not guarantee future revenue, but it does support medium-term visibility in a market the company is already targeting.
EOS reads as a rebound story, but one that still depends on execution. The company has reoriented around remote weapon systems, counter-drone systems and lasers, all areas tied to stronger defence spending. The key question is whether it can keep converting backlog and pipeline into delivered revenue while maintaining balance-sheet discipline.
4) Codan (ASX: CDA)
Codan is sometimes left out of casual defence stock lists because it is more diversified. That may be an oversight. In its H1 FY26 results, Codan said its Communications business designs mission-critical communications for global military and public safety markets. Communications revenue rose 19% to A$221.8 million. The company also said DTC delivered strong growth from defence and unmanned systems demand, with unmanned systems revenue up 68% to A$73 million. Codan said about half of that unmanned revenue was linked to operational defence applications in conflict zones.
This is where the story becomes more nuanced. In a basket of ASX defence stocks, Codan may offer a different profile, with less pure headline sensitivity, broader operating diversification and meaningful exposure to military communications and unmanned systems without being a single-theme name. That diversification may also mean the stock does not always trade like a pure-play defence name.
HighCom sits at the speculative end of this list, and it should be labelled that way. The company says its two continuing businesses are HighCom Armor, which supplies ballistic protection, and HighCom Technology, which supplies and maintains small and medium uncrewed aerial systems, counter-uncrewed aerial systems, and related engineering, integration, maintenance and logistics support for the ADF and other aligned regional militaries.
In H1 FY26, revenue from continuing operations fell 59% to A$10.9 million, while EBITDA moved to a A$5.4 million loss from a A$1.9 million profit a year earlier. HighCom also disclosed A$5.1 million in HighCom Technology revenue, including A$3.5 million from small uncrewed aerial systems (SUAS) spare parts and A$1.6 million from sustainment services provided to the Australian Department of Defence.
So yes, HighCom is one of the more financially sensitive ASX defence stocks on the board. But it is also the kind of smaller name that can show how procurement filters down into support, sustainment and specialist protection gear.
Key market observations
Track program milestones, not just political headlines. Contract awards, manufacturing starts, delivery schedules and sustainment work often matter more than a single announcement day.
Separate pure-play exposure from diversified exposure. DroneShield and EOS are closer to concentrated defence technology themes, while Codan brings communications exposure within a broader business mix.
Watch sovereign capability themes in Australia. Austal and EOS are tied to local manufacturing, integration and Australian supply chains, which supports the broader sovereign capability theme in this group.
Pay attention to balance sheets and cash conversion. Procurement momentum can be real even when timing gets messy. HighCom's latest half is a reminder of that.
Defence headlines can look immediate. Earnings usually are not. Austal's major naval work stretches into the next decade. EOS contracts are delivered over multiple years. DroneShield's order flow appears strong, but the company still separates committed revenue from broader pipeline opportunity. HighCom shows the other side of the coin. Exposure to procurement does not automatically translate into smooth financial execution.
References to ASX-listed defence stocks are general information only, not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security or CFD. These stocks can be highly volatile and are sensitive to contract timing, government policy, geopolitics, execution risk and market conditions. Backlog, pipeline and revenue expectations are not guarantees of future performance.
Three central banks are deciding rates simultaneously, Brent crude is swinging wildly around US$100 a barrel, and a war in the Middle East is rewriting the inflation outlook in real time. Whatever happens this week could set the tone for markets for the rest of 2026.
Quick facts
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) announces its next cash rate decision on Tuesday, with markets now pricing a 66% chance of a second hike to 4.1%.
Some analysts have warned the Iran war could push US inflation to 3.5% by year-end and delay Fed rate cuts until September, making this week's FOMC dot plot the most closely watched in years.
Brent crude is flirting with US$100 a barrel after Iran launched what state media described as its "most intense operation since the beginning of the war."
RBA: Will Australia hike again?
The RBA raised the cash rate for the first time in two years to 3.85% at its February meeting after inflation picked up materially in the second half of 2025.
The question now is whether it moves again before even seeing the next quarterly CPI print, which isn't due until 29 April.
Deputy Governor Andrew Hauser acknowledged ahead of the meeting that policymakers face a genuinely divided decision, shaped by conflicting economic signals at home and growing instability abroad.
Financial markets currently assign around a 66% probability to another hike, with a May increase considered virtually certain regardless of what happens Monday.
The FOMC meets on March 17–18, with the policy statement scheduled for 2:00 pm ET on March 18 and Chair Jerome Powell's press conference at 2:30 pm. CME FedWatch shows a 99% probability that the Fed holds rates at 3.50% to 3.75%.
The real action is in the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) and dot plot. The current median dot shows one 25-basis-point cut for 2026. If it shifts to two cuts, that is dovish and bullish for risk assets. If it shifts to zero cuts or adds a rate hike into the projection, markets could react in the other direction.
Further complicating matters, Powell's term as Federal Reserve Chair expires on May 23, 2026. Kevin Warsh is the leading candidate to replace him, viewed as more hawkish on monetary policy. Any comment from Powell on this transition could move markets independently of the rate decision itself.
Bank of Japan: Further tightening could be brought forward
The BOJ meets on March 18–19, with the decision expected Thursday morning Tokyo time. The current policy rate sits at 0.75% (a 30-year high), and the January 2026 meeting produced a hold in an 8-1 vote.
Governor Ueda has categorised the March meeting as "live," noting the timeline for further tightening could be "brought forward" if Shunto spring wage negotiations yield stronger-than-expected results.
Those results are due to begin flowing in during the week, making them the critical input for the BOJ's decision. Nomura expects 2026 Shunto wage hikes to come in around 5.0%, including seniority, with base pay growth of approximately 3.4%. If results confirm that trajectory, the case for a March hike strengthens considerably.
The complication is the global backdrop. Japan imports roughly 90% of its energy needs, and oil around US$100 per barrel is pushing up import costs and threatening to add inflationary pressure. A BOJ hike into a global oil shock would be an unusually bold move.
Most market participants still lean toward a hold at this meeting, with April or July seen as the more likely timing for the next move.
Brent crude briefly touched US$119.50 per barrel earlier in the week before dropping 17% to below US$80, then rebounding toward US$95 on mixed signals from Washington about the Strait of Hormuz.
As of Thursday, Brent was back over US$100 as Iran launched fresh attacks on commercial shipping and the IEA reserve release failed to bring meaningful relief.
In the scenario where a longer conflict inflicts damage to energy infrastructure, analysts estimate CPI could rise to 3.5% by the end of 2026, with gasoline prices approaching US$5 per gallon in the second quarter.
For this week, oil acts as a macro meta-variable. Every geopolitical headline, ceasefire signal, tanker attack, reserve release, and Trump comment could move equities, bonds and currencies in real time.
US-Israeli strikes on Iran launched on 28 February sent Brent crude surging past US$119 a barrel, gold above US$5,200, and defence stocks to all-time highs.
Against that backdrop, investors are focusing on a small group of commodity-linked names that may remain sensitive to further moves in oil, LNG and gold. The key question is whether the shock proves sustained, or whether a ceasefire, shipping normalisation, or policy action removes part of the geopolitical risk premium.
1. ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM)
ExxonMobil has been one of the clearest beneficiaries of the price surge. Shares hit a record high of US$159.60 in early March and are up approximately 28% year-to-date.
The company produces 4.7 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, has a Permian Basin breakeven of around US$35/barrel, and is committed to US$20 billion in buybacks for 2026.
Wells Fargo raised its price target to US$183 from US$156 following the escalation, while broader analyst consensus sits around US$140–$144. However, XOM is already trading above many consensus targets, and disruption to its LNG partner QatarEnergy poses a near-term operational headwind.
Chevron touched a new 52-week high of US$196.76 in early March and has risen approximately 24% year-to-date.
The company's Brent breakeven for dividends and capital expenditure sits around US$50/barrel. This means that at current Oil prices above US$90, it is generating significant free cash flow.
However, Chevron has temporarily halted operations at a gas field off Israel's coast following missile activity in the region, and the stock has since pulled back more than 1% as the conflict directly affects its operations.
What to watch
Direct operational updates from Chevron's Middle East and Israeli assets.
Any further halts that could weigh on near-term production.
With Qatar having halted output after Iranian drone strikes, buyers across Asia and Europe are scrambling for alternative supply. Woodside, as one of Australia's largest LNG producers and exporters, sits outside the conflict zone and is well-positioned to benefit from rerouted demand.
Analysts caution that actual substitution takes time due to shipping and contract constraints, meaning the price uplift may be more durable than a simple spot trade. European TTF benchmark gas prices surged over 50% in a week, amplifying the margin environment for non-Middle Eastern LNG producers.
What to watch
The pace and timeline of any Qatar LNG production restart.
If QatarEnergy remains offline for weeks, Woodside could begin re-contracting European buyers at elevated spot prices.
An Australian dollar move higher could be a headwind worth tracking for USD-denominated earnings.
4. Cheniere Energy (NYSE: LNG)
Alongside Woodside, Cheniere is the most direct US beneficiary of the Qatar LNG disruption. As the largest LNG exporter in the United States, it saw intraday strength at the start of the conflict week.
US domestic energy production has buffered American consumers from the worst of the shock, but the export premium has widened as European and Asian buyers pay up for non-Gulf supply.
The trade is "geopolitically sensitive," and any resolution could reverse upside quickly. But for as long as Hormuz and Gulf gas infrastructure remain compromised, Cheniere is positioned to benefit structurally.
What to watch
Any diplomatic breakthrough that reopens Gulf shipping lanes.
Announcements of new long-term offtake contracts signed at current elevated prices.
Gold surged 5.2% in a single session on 1 March, touching US$5,246/oz, as markets sought safe-haven assets. Newmont, the world's largest gold producer, has seen its reserves effectively revalued at these prices.
It is up alongside gold's 24% year-to-date gain, and its all-in sustaining costs remain largely fixed.
However, Gold miners sold off sharply on 4 March, and Newmont fell nearly 8% in a single session as broader risk-off deleveraging hit precious metals equities.
The stock has recovered since, but volatility remains high. For longer-duration investors, analysts note that "safe" mining jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia, and Nevada are commanding fresh premiums as Middle East instability raises the value of geopolitically secure supply.
What to watch
Whether gold can hold above US$5,000/oz.
A prolonged conflict could accelerate an M&A cycle in junior gold miners.
A ceasefire or broad equity deleveraging event as the primary risk to monitor.
Lockheed Martin reached a new all-time high of US$676.70 on 3 March, up over 4% for the day. Its F-35 fighters, precision-guided munitions, THAAD systems, and HIMARS rocket artillery are central to the ongoing air campaign.
The US Department of Defence is moving to replenish munitions stockpiles, and Trump's stated ambition to raise the US defence budget to US$1.5 trillion by 2027 adds a longer-term structural tailwind beyond the immediate conflict.
Defence stocks are rising amid classic geopolitical risk pricing, but investors should note that actual contract flow takes time to translate into earnings, and valuations already reflect considerable optimism.
What to watch
The pace of US Department of Defence munitions replenishment orders.
How quickly contract wins translate into backlog growth.
Barrick is tracking gold's historic run alongside Newmont, with the stock up sharply year-to-date. It sits at a roughly US$78 billion market capitalisation and is reporting record free cash flow projections as its all-in sustaining costs remain well below current spot prices.
Like Newmont, it experienced a sharp single-session selloff of more than 8% during the broader 4 March deleveraging event, before partially recovering.
Royalty and streaming companies such as Wheaton Precious Metals (WPM) are being favoured by some investors as a more inflation-protected way to access gold upside, given their lower operational cost exposure. But Barrick remains one of the world’s largest listed gold miners, with earnings that are highly sensitive to changes in the gold price
What to watch
Gold's ability to hold above US$5,000/oz.
Any Barrick moves toward junior miner acquisitions.
Energy cost inflation, as rising fuel prices could begin to squeeze miner operating margins.
