Advanced Search

Share Coverage



Category: Business, Economics and Finance / Economic Trends / Markets / Government and Politics / Elections

Neither Clinton nor Trump better for markets according to US financial advisers

Tuesday, 25 Oct 2016 13:46:21 | Thuy Ong

US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton. (Reuters)

A recent report shows global financial advisers think a Clinton presidency will be better for financial markets, though for American advisers, neither candidate appears to be better than the other.

Key points:

  • 40pc of US advisors say little difference for markets between Trump and Clinton win
  • Older respondents believe Trump would be better for share market than Clinton
  • Respondents rated Clinton as better on trade and geopolitical risk

Around 40 per cent of respondents in the US said neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump would be better than the other on five key factors of the stock market, bond market, global economy, global trade, and geopolitical risk.

The latest 2016 Global Financial Advisor survey from Natixis Global Asset Management showed trends among those managing client money and distinct opinions between those in the US and those outside.

"If Brexit has taught us one thing, it's that betting on the conventional wisdom can be dangerous," said David Lafferty, chief market strategist at Natixis Global Asset Management a note to clients.

But 32 per cent of US respondents believed Clinton would fare better in global trade, and 35 per cent believed she would fare better in geopolitical risk.

Even as Trump remains behind Clinton in polls, 34 per cent of US respondents over the age of 47 believe Trump would be better for the stock market, compared to Clinton on 21 per cent.

Over the past 180 years, the report noted that elected presidents have not had significant impact on financial markets, but short-term market blips can occur when an election result surprises.

"The president's policy choices have been pretty irrelevant to financial market performance," said Chris Wallis, chief executive and portfolio manager at Vaughan Nelson Investment Management.

"History also shows that the average volatility in the market today is about the same as it was in the 1800s... the early 1900s, the mid-1900s, the postwar period and so on."

When broken down, Clinton was the preferred candidate for the stock market, bond market, global economy, global trade and geopolitical risk, with around 45-55 per cent of global advisers saying her presidency would be better for those markets, compared to only a mid-teens percentage for Trump.

"Regardless of the winner, [a] Washington gridlock won't likely produce major policy changes, although some modest corporate tax reform is possible," said Mr Lafferty.

"While long-run return implications are uncertain, we still believe that Mr Trump's newcomer status and lack of policy history would make him the source of more short-term volatility.

AustraliaPlus


 

Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.

沪公网安备 31010602000204号

Email this to your friend