Investment strategy bulletin
US presidential election: potential market impacts
In what has been a particularly political year, the forthcoming US presidential election is now drawing much of the market attention. Indeed, following the UK’s unexpected vote in favour of “Brexit”, investors seem more concerned about the re-emergence of protectionism around the globe, and the likely consequences that such a development would have on financial markets.
In a previous bulletin, we exposed why a Clinton victory is our base case scenario. The first two debates and ensuing polls gave Mrs Clinton a significant advantage over Donald Trump. These developments continue to support our stance. Nevertheless, as the voting process cannot be anticipated with accuracy, the consequences of a potential Republican victory should be considered.
The disruptive nature of a potential Trump presidency makes it crucial from a portfolio positioning standpoint, as it could imply the end of well-entrenched trends such as yield-chasing and emerging market stabilisation depending on his ability to pass his most radical proposals.
SCENARIO 1: A CLINTON VICTORY (BASE CASE)
Former Secretary Clinton’s campaign suggests a bolstering and expansion of Obamacare, minimum wage legislation and a continued focus on renewable energy and drilling restrictions, which would weigh on pharmaceuticals, consumer discretionary (restaurant/retail), energy (shale industry in particular) and utilities (higher carbon emission and efficiency standards). Albeit already somewhat priced-in, as evidenced by relative sector performance, these pressures should strengthen if Clinton is actually elected.
One of Clinton’s key policy ambitions is a large-scale infrastructure program. However, as highlighted in our previous bulletin, a Clinton victory would likely come with a divided government. Expectations regarding the final size of such a program thus stand to be disappointed. In addition, it should be at least partly funded by a higher tax rate on high income brackets and estates, in an attempt to limit the impact on the US public deficit.
As for inflation, some pressure might arise from the introduction of a minimum wage. Although, here again, political division will likely prevent broad-based application of such legislation, a gradual implementation at the federal and state level cannot be excluded. All things being equal, we think that a Clinton victory might support inflation break-even and nominal rates, but not to the extent of generating a significant trend in the Treasury market.
All told, with a Clinton victory remaining our and the market’s base case, and pointing to policy continuity vis-à-vis the current Obama administration, we expect no major implications in terms of market direction. Rather, the few trades that did start to price in a Trump victory would reverse. For instance, the rally in US dollar against Mexican peso – the clearest reflection of rising Trump risk – rolled over after the first debate. Another episode of rising Trump polls would offer a better entry point to investors who would like to bet on a Clinton victory.
SCENARIO 2: A TRUMP VICTORY
First and foremost, a Trump victory would translate into higher risk premiums, in the US but also more broadly, given the uncertainties surrounding his political program and the larger policy changes involved. The likelihood that a Trump victory be associated with Republicans holding on to their majority in both the Senate and the House would facilitate adoption of his main policy positions. Against this backdrop, Treasuries are likely to initially benefit from safe haven flows.
Medium-term though, once the dust settles, there are many aspects of the Trump program that should drive US yields higher, notably a larger public deficit (with infrastructure investments and tax cuts not funded by a rise in revenues), the appointment of a more hawkish Fed Chairman to replace Janet Yellen, and upward pressure on wages and imported inflation due to immigration and trade barriers. The inflation break-even rate should thus rise more significantly than in our base case scenario. More generally, a higher public deficit and the increased uncertainty on monetary policy should imply a normalisation of the term premium, and, in turn, a steepening of the yield curve.
Trade policy, the field of candidate Trump’s most radical proposals, will be key to foreign exchange markets. There is much debate as what Trump would actually do if elected. That said, the US President does have broad-based authority under existing statutes to unilaterally impose significant barriers on international trade. Larger fiscal stimulus, repatriation and protectionism should support the US dollar, particularly against the Mexican peso and the renminbi. Indeed, Mexico and China were explicitly targeted by the Republican candidate when he suggested dramatic changes in trade agreements, with imports tariffs of respectively 35% and 45% mentioned. Volatility and losses on these currencies should be exacerbated – China might retaliate by ending its intervention in the currency markets – and are likely to spread, at least partly, to the rest of the emerging space.
In equity markets, following an initial bout of volatility, a reduction of the corporate tax rate (from 35% to 15%) would be supportive. Sector-wise, the main themes of the Trump campaign suggest outperformance of big pharma (repeal Obamacare), financials (dismantle Dodd-Frank), materials (impose tariffs on Chinese steel and invest in infrastructure), traditional energy (support energy production and deregulate exports) and information technology (offer a repatriation holiday on foreign earnings). Expectations of a boost to the domestic economy, albeit short-lived, should lead to an outperformance of the US equities, especially relative to emerging markets.
For credit, higher financing costs are likely to be somewhat offset by the corporate tax cut. Despite high leverage, coverage of interest expense should thus remain sufficient to avoid a surge in defaults.
Finally, within the commodity complex, gold might initially benefit from investor interest as part of a risk-off episode, but the precious metal should then be capped by the rise in US interest rates. As for oil prices, the opposite positions of the two candidates on the shale industry (with Clinton arguing for greater regulation and Trump offering little support to renewable sources of energy) make for very divergent prospective US production. The US being the “swing” producer, oil prices would likely be lower in the case of a Trump presidency that incentivizes shale investment.
In conclusion, while a Clinton victory would not markedly change current market trends, a Trump victory would call into question the two most important forces currently driving financial markets. Higher nominal rates and a steeper yield curve would challenge the viability of the yield-chasing approach. And a rise in protectionism would hamper the stabilisation of the emerging markets complex, just as these economies are beginning to recover. The importance of the outcome of the US presidential election should thus not be underestimated.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION – GENERAL MARKETING
This is a marketing communication issued by Bank Lombard Odier & Co Ltd or an entity of the Group (hereinafter “Lombard Odier”). It is not intended for distribution, publication, or use in any jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, or use would be unlawful, nor is it aimed at any person or entity to whom it would be unlawful to address such a document. This marketing communication is provided for information purposes only.
It does not constitute an offer or a recommendation to subscribe, to purchase, sell or hold any security or financial instrument. It contains the opinions of Lombard Odier, as at the date of issue. These opinions and the information herein contained do not take into account an individual’s specific circumstances, objectives, or needs. No representation is made that any investment or strategy is suitable or appropriate to individual circumstances or that any investment or strategy constitutes a personal recommendation to any investor. Tax treatment depends on the individual circumstances of each client and may be subject to change in the future. Lombard Odier does not provide tax advice. Therefore you must verify the above and all other information provided in the marketing communication or otherwise review it with your external tax advisors.
European Union Members: This marketing communication has been approved for issue by Lombard Odier (Europe) S.A., a credit institution authorised and regulated by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) in Luxembourg and by each of its branches operating in the following territories: Belgium: Lombard Odier (Europe) S.A. Luxembourg · Belgium branch, a credit institution regulated in Belgium by the Banque nationale de Belgique (BNB) and the Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA); France: Lombard Odier (Europe) S.A. · Succursale en France, a credit institution and regulated in France by the Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR) and by the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) in respect of its investment services activities; Italy: Lombard Odier (Europe) S.A. • Italian Branch, credit institution governed in Italy by the Italian stock market regulator (Commissione Nazionale per la Società e la Borsa , or CONSOB) and the Bank of Italy; Netherlands: Lombard Odier (Europe) S.A. · Netherlands Branch, a credit institution regulated in the Netherlands by De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) and by Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM); Spain: Lombard Odier (Europe) S.A. · Sucursal en España, a credit institution regulated in Spain by the Banco de España and the Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV); and United Kingdom: Lombard Odier (Europe) S.A. · UK Branch, a credit institution regulated in the UK by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and subject to limited regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (“PRA”). Details of the extent of our authorisation and regulation by the PRA and regulation by the FCA are available from us on request. UK regulation for the protection of retail clients in the UK and the compensation available under the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme does not apply in respect of any investment or services provided by an overseas person.
In addition, this marketing communication has also been approved for issue by the following entities domiciled within the European Union: Gibraltar: Lombard Odier & Cie (Gibraltar) Limited, a firm which is regulated and authorised by the Financial Services Commission, Gibraltar (FSC) to conduct banking and investment services business; Spain: Lombard Odier Gestión (España) SGIIC, S.A., an investment management Company authorised and regulated by the CNMV.
Switzerland: This marketing communication has been approved for issue by Bank Lombard Odier & Co Ltd, a bank and securities dealer authorised and regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA).
United States: Neither this document nor any copy thereof may be sent, taken into, or distributed in the United States of America, any of its territories or possessions or areas subject to its jurisdiction, or to or for the benefit of a United States Person. For this purpose, the term “United States Person” shall mean any citizen, national or resident of the United States of America, partnership organized or existing in any state, territory or possession of the United States of America, a corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any state, territory or possession thereof, or any estate or trust that is subject to United States Federal income tax regardless of the source of its income.
This marketing communication may not be reproduced (in whole or in part), transmitted, modified, or used for any public or commercial purpose without the prior written permission of Lombard Odier. © 2016 Bank Lombard Odier & Co Ltd – all rights reserved