Read: This is the heart of the divergence story. Every E&P name — XOM, CVX, OXY, COP, DVN, EOG — is down 3-7% on the week even as the blockade narrative intensifies. They're all 15-30% above their SMA200 on the 3M run, but RSI has pulled back to the mid-40s. The weekly selloff is telling: the market doesn't believe oil company earnings will accrue at $128 crude. Either it's pricing in production disruption (can't extract/ship if Hormuz is closed), demand destruction (high oil kills demand, killing volumes), or geopolitical resolution. The oilfield services names (HAL, SLB) are holding better — they collect day-rates regardless of crude price, so the market is more comfortable with their earnings power.

The divergence in numbers: USO is 60.7% above SMA200. XOM is 23.9% above. CVX is 18.8% above. The commodity ETF (physical crude) has dramatically outrun the equity plays. That's either a massive opportunity if oil stays high, or a warning that equity investors see risks the crude futures market doesn't.

Read: The divergence between USO (+77% 3M) and XLE (+20% 3M) is the most important data point in this entire scan. Oil has tripled the performance of the energy equity index over the same period. That gap is not normal. In past oil spikes (2005, 2011, 2022), energy equities tracked crude with a modest lag — but not a 3-to-1 underperformance. OIH (oilfield services) at +27% 3M and +38.8% above SMA200 is actually the closest to crude's performance — services companies don't have the same earnings destruction risk from demand-side exposure. XLE's flat 30D despite crude's +12% is remarkable. The market is explicitly saying: we don't trust that high crude translates to high equity earnings for integrated majors.

Read: Safe havens are broken as a category on Hormuz blockade day. Gold is down 5.4% in 30 days. TLT (long bonds) is essentially flat — no flight to duration quality. UUP (dollar) is weakening. This is the most bearish signal in the entire scan, and it's not about energy: it means the classic geopolitical risk playbook is not working.

Three explanations, in order of likelihood:

1. Forced liquidation — risk-parity and leveraged portfolios are selling everything to cover losses. Gold goes down not because it's bad, but because it's liquid.
2. Counterintuitive inflation trade — if Hormuz stays closed, oil costs spike, which is inflationary, which is bad for bonds and bad for gold (gold hates rate rises). The market is front-running a stagflationary regime where cash-flow-generating assets (E&Ps, OIH) matter more than store-of-value.
3. No one believes the blockade persists — if the market prices in 72-hour resolution, safe havens don't bid, oil spikes and retreats, and we're back to normal in a week.

GDX (gold miners) is holding better than physical gold — RSI 56.6 with a golden cross. Miners have operating leverage to gold price but also benefit from weakening input costs (nat gas down -12% 30D). Worth accumulating if you're bullish gold on a longer timeline.

Read: Defense is not spiking on blockade day. This is significant. LMT, NOC, and GD are all down on the 7D. The 3M picture is mixed-to-negative for most names. DFEN (3x leveraged defense) is down -14% on the quarter. If the market were genuinely pricing a major military escalation, Lockheed and Northrop would be at 52-week highs. They're not.

The standouts are RTX and LHX — both golden cross, both holding above SMA200, both down only modestly. These two have the most direct exposure to "modern warfare" (missiles, electronics, ISR) rather than legacy platform procurement. BA is recovering from its self-inflicted quality problems and showing a golden cross, though still only 1.4% above SMA200. The ETF basket (ITA, PPA) is flat-to-slightly-positive — which is exactly what the data predicts when individual names are mixed.

The non-reaction in defense is the loudest signal here. If this blockade were being priced as a multi-month military conflict, these stocks would be limit-up, not flat.

This scan has one job: figure out what the market believes about the Hormuz blockade. The data gives us a clear verdict by looking at three camps:

Camp 1 — The Believers (physical crude, oil services): USO +77% 3M, OIH +27%, HAL +17%, SLB +11%. The commodity futures market and oilfield services are pricing a real, sustained disruption. These are the bets that the blockade is genuine and oil scarcity is here.

Camp 2 — The Skeptics (energy equities, defense): XLE flat 30D despite crude +12%. XOM, CVX, COP all down 3-7% on the week. LMT, NOC, GD all down 30D. These are the bets that either (a) the blockade resolves quickly, or (b) high oil prices cause enough demand destruction to hurt energy company earnings.

Camp 3 — The Disbelievers (gold, bonds, dollar, defense ETFs): GLD -5.4% 30D. TLT flat. UUP weakening. No safe-haven bid. These are the bets that the macro system is NOT under stress — that this is a localized commodity disruption, not a financial contagion event.

The verdict: The market is pricing a short-duration, commodity-specific shock that does not cascade into broader financial stress. It believes oil stays high long enough to hurt consumers (hence the commodity spike), but not long enough or broadly enough to trigger defense procurement, safe-haven flight, or energy equity earnings windfalls.

The trade that follows from this: If the blockade persists longer than the market expects, the mismatch is largest in energy equities (XLE, XOM, CVX relative to USO) and defense names (LMT, RTX relative to DFEN). Those are the catch-up trades if Camp 1 is right and Camps 2 and 3 are wrong.

• What's the resolution trigger for the USO/XLE gap? Does crude fall to close it, or do equities run up?
• If blockade resolves in <72 hours, which trades reverse fastest — crude down, defense up, gold up?
• Why is BA (+3.3% 7D, golden cross) outperforming pure-play defense names?