Here's a perfect example of a key point made in yesterday's article, What Does A War Between The US And Iran Mean To The Stock Market? and how the financial media all too often gets it wrong.

Quote from WSJ daily email alert:

"Stocks pare losses after missile strike roiled markets. Iran's military response initially rattled markets, but the moves in stocks, bonds and commodities quickly moderated as investors reassessed the chances of a broader conflict."

No. Investors did not reassess "the chance of a broader conflict". They assessed the impacts to their financial and valuation models and concluded "meh".

The clear and present danger to soldiers and civilians means nothing (financially) to professional investors unless they see a clear and present danger to the inputs to their financial and valuation models. Said inputs are professional investors' soldiers. Kill people? Oh, well. Kill inputs? Holy hell!!

Note: the chances of a "broader conflict" may actually be perceived as a positive if earnings benefit from the bloodshed. Sounds grim but that is how the justification-to-act investment game is played.