March Madness, Stock Market Edition!

NCAA College basketball is currently in its annual “March Madness” tournament to crown the best team in the nation. But March Madness, it seems, has not only been for college basketball this year. Indeed, the turn of the calendar month coincided with the beginning of the conflict in Iran, which has led to large gyrations in financial markets across the globe.  

We at Bold Wealth thought it would be an interesting exercise to compare the total returns of 64 popular country, sector, and industry ETFs during this wild month of trading to identify the main winners, losers, and surprises. 

Here is our winners’ tournament bracket, along with our main thoughts on how the month went down. (Please refer to the appendix to find all 64 ETFs, with their full name and total return in March). 

• Without surprise, the Energy sector (as proxied by the State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF, “XLE”) was the main winner. The total return of this ETF in March was +10.2%, with the price of Brent Crude surging 63% during the month, from $72.48 USD per barrel on February 27th to $118.35 on March 31st.  

~20 million barrels of crude oil and oil equivalents passed through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway separating Iran and the UAE and Oman, every single day in 2025 (according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration), representing roughly a fifth of all global oil production. That flow essentially ground to a halt shortly after the conflict started, leaving countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman struggling to find either storage for their oil production, or new routes to ship them to their customers across the globe. 

Iran and their proxies also used asymmetric warfare strategies against regional neighbors, notably using relatively cheap and plentiful Shahed-136 drones (costing as low as $20,000 USD each). To counter the drones, Israel, the UAE, and other Middle Eastern countries had to rely on Patriot PAC-3 interceptor missiles, which can cost $4 million to produce. 

Although most attacks were successfully countered, Iran was still able to inflict damage to key oil and natural gas infrastructure across the region, with the most impactful one being the strikes on the largest LNG plant in the world, Qatar’s Ras Laffan complex. According to QatarEnergy’s CEO, it may take up to five years to repair the damage, causing an estimated $20 billion in lost annual revenue. 

Put this all together, and it means higher-for-longer energy prices, which generally benefits the oil majors. It is worth noting, however, that ExxonMobil is a partner in the damaged LNG facilities in Qatar, so not all energy players benefited equally. Oil-producing countries like Norway (ENOR ETF) and Saudi Arabia (KSA ETF) were also, without much surprise, beneficiaries of the conflict in terms of their market proxy returns.  

• Bitcoin, the main surprise of the draw: Bitcoin has a checkered past when it comes to its status as a store of value. However, it was one of the notable outperformers during the conflict, with its proxy ETF IBIT gaining 3.3% in March. Some observers attributed this to growing concerns over sovereign debt levels and fiat currency stability in a wartime environment.  

It’s important to note, though, that contrary to Gold, Bitcoin was in the midst of a large drawdown (-25% year-to-date at the end of February, and down 47.7% from its peak in October 2025), so dip-buying, as opposed to renewed fears of inflation and currency debasement, might have explained its resilience in March.  

Out of the 64 ETFs entered in the draw, only six logged gains in March. Put differently, over 90% of the ETFs in our universe lost money during the month. Because of that fact, we also decided to create a loser’s bracket to highlight the (numerous) countries and industries that suffered from the onset of conflict. Here is that less glorious bracket along with our highlights:  

• Gold (and particularly Gold miners), the surprise loser: Many investors use gold as a store of value and as a diversifier when geopolitical tensions arise. However, as we see in the bracket above, the proxy to gold miners, the VanEck Gold Miners ETF (“GDX”), was the single worst-performing ETF in our universe in March (-20.8%). Its physical gold equivalent, measured through its proxy ETF SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”), also entered correction territory (-11.1%). 

Among the most-cited reasons for Gold’s poor performance in March are higher interest rate expectations (according to fed funds futures, investors are now pricing in two rate cuts less for the rest of 2026 than before the conflict broke out), as well as a stronger US dollar. However, these alone cannot explain the sharpness with which Gold corrected. Indeed, the yellow metal may simply have been a victim of its own success; as of the end of February, it was already up 22% year-to-date (Gold miners were up 35%), with cumulative gains since the beginning of 2025 reaching 99% and 244%, respectively. 

• Emerging Markets and Developed ex. North America were also big losers: The conflict basically acted like a massive tax on energy importers, and Europe and EM economies fit that profile far more than the U.S. did. 

Europe went into the crisis with gas storage levels already well below recent years, so the energy shock hit an already vulnerable continent. Countries with large industrial and manufacturing sectors, like Sweden and Germany, were particularly exposed given their energy-intensive economies. Five European country ETFs (Sweden (EWD, -11%), Germany (EWG, -10.5%), Greece¹ (GREK, -9.6%), Switzerland (EWL, -9.6%), and France (EWQ, -9.4%)) were notably in the bottom quartile of our bracket, while only Norway (a big oil producer) was in the top quartile. This is in stark contrast to the situation prior to the start of March, when Europe was a notable outperformer (7.8% y-t-d, and 46.5% cumulative return since January 2025, as measured by the proxy ETF VGK (Vanguard FTSE Europe ETF )).  

Emerging market countries with heavy energy import bills (South Korea (EWY, -18.7%), Indonesia (EIDO, -11.4%), Philippines (EPHE, -11%), among others) and/or fuel subsidies also suffered from rising energy prices.  

Much like Gold, South Korea ended the month of February on an absolute tear (EWY up 55.7% year-to-date, +204% cumulative since January 2025), bolstered by SK Hynix and Samsung, its two giants riding the memory boom. And yet, it was by far the worst performing country in our bracket in March. 

Many of the countries and industries that were riding high prior to the start of the conflict ended up among the worst performers in March. The Energy sector is an exception, though; prior to the conflict, the Energy sector ETF (XLE) was already up 25.1% year-to-date!  

Now that the “crazy” month of March has passed, the market seems more optimistic that a cease-fire or conflict de-escalation will occur in the coming weeks. Indeed, over the last two business days (March 31 and April 1), the iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) has rallied 4.1%, while oil prices have cratered. 

Regardless, investors remain glued to their monitors to try and make sense of every piece of news in the hopes of gaining clarity on where the conflict, and quite possibly financial markets, are headed in the weeks ahead. Key indicators to watch include shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, oil inventory reports, and any diplomatic signals from the parties involved. How quickly energy flows normalize will likely determine whether March’s winners and losers stay that way, or whether we see another round of reversals. 

Appendix: List of 64 ETFs Participating in the Bold Wealth March Madness: Stock Market Edition 

Note: All ETF returns were sourced from Bloomberg 

^{1 Greece is technically an Emerging market according to MSCI’s country classification} 

^{Disclaimer 
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, a Portfolio Manager at Bold Wealth Partners Inc. (“Bold Wealth”), and are provided for general informational purposes only. They do not constitute investment advice, financial planning guidance, or a recommendation to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments.} 

^{Bold Wealth is registered as a Portfolio Manager and Investment Fund Manager in applicable Canadian jurisdictions. The information presented is based on sources believed to be reliable; however, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to its accuracy or completeness. All opinions reflect the author’s judgment as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice.} 

^{This content is not intended to provide personalized investment advice. Readers should consult their own financial advisor or other qualified professional to assess the suitability of any investment strategy in light of their individual financial circumstances, objectives, and risk tolerance.} 

^{Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal.} 

^{The author and/or Bold Wealth may hold positions in the securities or sectors mentioned and may engage in transactions that are inconsistent with the views expressed herein.}