Markets stocks

Wild Blue Yonder

If you ask me, one of the most amusing aspects of the evolving market narrative over the past three (or so) months is the prevalence of belabored efforts to explain why the prospect of a Democratic sweep is suddenly bullish for risk assets.

That market participants are just now coming around to what should have been obvious to everyone all along is a testament to deeply ingrained misperceptions about the purported benefits of supply-side economics and, more narrowly, the wholly misguided notion that lower tax rates are some kind of panacea that trumps (and there’s a joke there) every other consideration in the world.

It’s easy to understand why market participants would have feared a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren presidency. My own personal views aside, and forgetting all nuance, even investors of a liberal persuasion would have had headline shock if “President Sanders” became a reality. I get it. I don’t agree, necessarily, that a hard socialist turn would be unequivocally bad for the US economy, especially given how broken American capitalism clearly is. But I do get it. I’d probably take some off the table too if we were headed into November with Bernie up double-digits.

(And please, spare me the Cliff Asness straw men arguments. By “hard socialist turn,” I mean that in a developed/advanced economy context. Obviously, some kind of nightmare scenario where an unhinged, leftist ideologue with no respect for democracy seizes power would be a catastrophe. That’s self-evident and nobody sane wants that, so referencing it is a straw man.)

But the day it became apparent that Bernie Sanders would not be the Democratic nominee should have been the day that all investors decided to vote Democrat for president, if not on the down-ballots.

Donald Trump, whatever you want to say about him, lost the plot a long time ago. He’s knee-deep in a presidential fantasy he arguably never even wanted to realize, and now he’s stuck somewhere between getting swept out of office in a landslide or having to “go there” and literally transform America into an autocracy. His behavior has ventured clear out into the wild blue yonder. Asked repeatedly over the past several months what he plans to do in a second term, the president has come up empty. If this is a show, it has no script at all anymore.

If the market hates uncertainty, then investors should be utterly aghast at the prospect of another four years of “The Real World” D.C. But it wasn’t until recently that market participants began to exhibit signs of “wanting” (and that’s a bit of a misnomer, but it’ll work) a Biden victory. The turning point was Trump’s meddling with the Post Office and refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. That was a bridge too far.

And so, seemingly everyone with even a passing interest in the intersection of markets and politics (and they intersect at almost every turn) has been busy furiously rewriting the script to explain why a Biden win is bullish, without coming out and stating the obvious, which is just that nobody wants to live in an actual, real authoritarian state, let alone one run by Donald Trump.

Low-hanging fruit in this effort are explanations that revolve around pro-growth fiscal policies and the extent to which they can offset higher corporate taxes. Goldman’s David Kostin was out with more on this in a Friday note.

“The election outcome poses upside and downside risks to future S&P 500 earnings [tied to] proposed and expected policies related to tax reform, fiscal stimulus, and trade,” he wrote, adding that “our analysis suggests that a large increase in fiscal spending, funded in part by increased tax revenue, would boost economic growth and help offset the earnings headwind from high tax rates.”

Kostin goes on to say that sequencing matters. In fact, one of the “key assumptions” the bank makes when suggesting that a potential “Blue Wave” would actually have a “modestly positive net impact on the trajectory of S&P 500 profits,” is that Biden and Harris would “prioritize fiscal stimulus in the first year [and] phase-in tax reform in 2022/23.”

There are two things worth noting. The first is that while the US would, of course, borrow to “fund” the stimulus, the idea of “prioritizing” fiscal initiatives while “phasing-in” the tax reform that’s supposed to “pay for” them, exposes the flaw in the notion that the government “needs” tax money to “fund” spending. If the government really needed your tax dollars to fund stimulus, then it wouldn’t be possible to “prioritize” a fiscal package. Goldman doesn’t go there, for obvious reasons, but the public needs to be aware of how this process actually works.

The second notable is Kostin’s somewhat cautionary assessment that “if the Democrats were to implement both fiscal stimulus and tax reform in 2021, we estimate these polices would have largely offsetting effects, leading to S&P 500 EPS being roughly in line with our status quo 2021E estimate but lower thereafter.”

In either case, though, the worst outcome is seen as a flat net impact in the first two years. Goldman’s baseline is for a modest bump in year one and two. I would argue that over the longer-run (e.g., looking out to years three, four, and beyond) expansionary fiscal policy that aims to improve the plight of those with the highest marginal propensity to consume would be stimulative for an economy that lives and dies by consumer spending. Lifting albatrosses like student debt burdens and absurdly high healthcare premiums from the necks of the middle-class would almost invariably boost consumption and could well bring forward household formation.

You can think of the above as a kind of addendum to “Would You Trade A 4% Haircut In The S&P’s Fair Value For Sanity?,” in which I discussed the drag on capex from the rampant uncertainty associated with trade wars and unpredictable policy shifts.

Needless to say (and this picks up on some of the points made in that linked post), any competent management team should be able to work around a higher effective tax rate in an environment of less uncertainty and higher consumer spending. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that the real determinants of corporate profits often end up being exogenous shocks, unpredictable shifts in consumer habits, and factors that have little, if anything, to do with tax policy. Just ask Q2 2020.

In any event, you can expect to hear more rationalizing going forward with regard to why a Democratic sweep is now bullish for risk assets, including and especially stocks.

What you probably won’t hear, though, is an outright admission that, over the summer, nearly everyone still in full possession of their faculties finally acquiesced to the reality that what’s going on at 1600 Penn. simply isn’t tenable.


5 comments on “Wild Blue Yonder

  1. George says:

    That last paragraph says it all and explains why the pendulum of events we ride swings perpetually.. The complexity increases ,however, with the realization that the fixed point our device swings from is on a (seemingly) random trajectory that moves at a Glacial Pace (borrow H…term) and can/will sooner or later encounter the unexpected … That could be used to explain the last four years as well as other potential drastic changes in the future . I worry the most about the theory we read a lot about which depicts the issues about reserve currency status and creation of unlimited quantities of money colliding with Geopolitics.. these issues have consequences because they create winners and losers !!!

  2. Anonymous says:

    I am in favor of the federal government providing health care. Health insurance should not be tied one’s place of employment. Socialized healthcare, with the option to obtain private insurance, should be as basic as K-12 education. Heck, I am also in favor of “free” college ( on line?) education- as our work force needs more advanced skills- but I digress.

    If the government provides healthcare, this economic cost will be shifted from corporations/ individuals to the Federal government. The average annual cost for health insurance for a family ( in round numbers) is $20,000– with $5,000 paid by individual ( with pre-tax dollars) and $15,000 paid by employer. Shifting this burden to the government will have a positive impact on the bottom line- another positive for equities under a Biden presidency.

    • Mr. Lucky says:

      It can be argued that I have “government-provided” healthcare (Medicare) except I pay for it. My bill is $5500 a year for my Medicare premium, $7200 for my secondary policy (good drug coverage, incl) plus 3.8% of my surplus investment returns as a tax surcharge and my regular tax rate on all my SS check. So total net, I effectively have to pay out my entire SS check to cover my “government provided” health care.

  3. John3D says:

    Is it surprising that sanity and rational behavior are good for the market. Successful companies tend to display both.

  4. Mr. Lucky says:

    As I was reading this forecast of various outcomes, it occurred to me that there is no long-term right now. Clearly, Biden would not be a two-term President. But more than that, no one around from either party really presents as a prospective two-term “leader of the free world.” I fear what we are faced with are a bunch of the best of the losers POTUS choices who won’t even be able to fill the 10,000+ significant appointments required to set up the Executive branch. Trump hasn’t even managed to have even a month with a cabinet of permanent, Senate-approved appointees. Thousands of other jobs remain unfilled. That is just scary. Are we doomed to be like Italy where they have averaged one new government a year since WW II?

Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar