Morgan Stanley vurderer effekten på aktiemarkdet af det amerikanske valg den 3. november. Hvis der bliver en klar valgsejr for Demokraterne i Det hvide Hus, Senatet og Repræsentanternes Hus, kan det få de cykliske aktier til at fare i vejret, mens renten vil stige. En ren politisk sejr til gøre det mere sandsynligt med nye finanspolitiske stimuli for at styrke økonomien, mener Morgan Stanley.
Are Markets Pricing-In Recent U.S. Election Polls?
Although many investors view markets as a highly efficient prognostic machine, the surprises of the 2016 election may have created more hesitancy to guess election outcomes.
Well, it’s just 18 days until the U.S. election. Today, I wanted to discuss two things: why you shouldn’t assume that the latest polling is necessarily reflected in market prices, and why the biggest variable for markets could be a so-called sweep.
Let’s start with the polling. It’s popular to think of the market as a highly efficient machine that immediately reflects new information. And so, as recent polls have shown a widening lead for Vice President Joe Biden, it would seem reasonable to assume that the markets have already moved to fully reflect this.
But I’m not so sure. My conversations with investors suggest that there’s a huge amount of interest in the U.S. election outcome, but little desire to add or change holdings ahead of the result. I think a lot of investors still see the outcome of this year’s election as uncertain, and at this point feel they don’t have to wait very long to know with certainty.
The flow data we see from our trading business reflects a very similar pattern. In short, don’t assume that markets are reflecting the latest poll numbers, and that means there could be outsized amounts of activity once the result is finally known.
My second point is around outcomes. While there’s obviously a lot riding on this election, for markets, the most important variable might be ‘sweep versus no sweep’.
By sweep, I mean the same party controlling the presidency, the House, and the Senate. And that’s important because it’s the outcome that most likely ensures that fiscal policy would be able to support a U.S. economy that still remains quite weak.
Divided power, on the other hand, would suggest a higher risk of protracted budget battles, and a higher risk that additional economic support might be delayed, or would fail to arrive at all. I’d stress that our U.S. public policy team thinks that a sweep by either party is likely, in our view, to lead to this looser fiscal policy outcome.
That question of whether or not additional fiscal support comes through is a hugely important variable for markets.
A sweep by either party could result in a significant move higher in interest rates and outperformance in cyclical stocks; two events that we do not think investors are positioned for. Divided power, in contrast, could risk the opposite effect.
