Opinion
How Donald Trump’s ‘catastrophic’ debate shook up Wall Street
Stephen Bartholomeusz
Senior business columnistFor months there’s been talk of the “Trump Trade”, or investors positioning themselves for an easy Trump win over Joe Biden. After Wednesday’s debate between Trump and Biden’s replacement, Kamala Harris, that trade unravelled a little.
The Trump trade is based on the obvious view that his policies will favour some sectors and hurt others.
Should he win, the likelihood of more big tax cuts, his fixation with tariffs, his promise to “drill, baby, drill”, a new-found passion for cryptocurrencies, his plan to round up and deport illegal immigrants and the potential for radical deregulation would all have impacts on stock and bond markets and the US dollar.
Energy companies, healthcare stocks, the big tech companies and operators of privately owned prisons (not surprisingly, given that temporary incarceration of 15 million to 20 million immigrants would require vast detention facilities) are among the groups that would benefit from a Trump win.
He would also have impacts beyond the US, with his trade policies hugely threatening to China, its share and bond markets and currency, Europe (ditto) and emerging markets. They wouldn’t be good for anyone else, probably including the US, either.
Harris also has a big-spending agenda, albeit nowhere near as expensive or as globally impactful as Trump’s.
Smaller businesses, childcare and housing would probably benefit, while larger corporates would face a higher tax rate and pharmaceutical companies would confront pressure to lower their prices. A promised crackdown on corporate “price-gouging” might, or might not, impact company profits.
There would, therefore, be disparate impacts on stocks and bonds, depending on which contender prevailed in November and, of course, what the composition of Congress might be.
Harris won the debate handsomely. Karl Rove, the conservative commentator and former senior staffer in George W. Bush’s administration, writing in the equally conservative Wall Street Journal, described the debate as “catastrophic” for Trump, which was a general conclusion.
Past debates, even those where there was a perceived resounding win by one of the protagonists – Hillary Clinton over Trump in 2016, for instance – haven’t been a guide to election outcomes. That doesn’t mean, however, that they can’t have some impact on the perceived odds of a victory.
Markets shifted after the debate. Credit: Bloomberg
The betting markets demonstrated that, with PredictIt lifting her price from US53¢ to US56¢ (which roughly equates to a 56 per cent chance of winning the presidency) to Trump’s US47¢. Another betting agency, Polymarket, which had Trump well in front going into the debate, saw a shift in its pricing that had the two contenders tied.
A more conventional verdict on the debate’s outcome was delivered by the sharemarket.
Shares in Trump Media, the struggling social media platform 57 per cent owned by Trump, have tended to be sensitive to perceived shifts in his political (and legal) standings.
When Joe Biden stepped out of the race in July, effectively handing the Democratic nomination to Harris, it marked the start of a selloff of Trump Media shares that wiped about $US3.75 billion ($5.6 billion) off the company’s market capitalisation and about $U2 billion off Trump’s paper net worth.
After the debate, Trump Media shares fell as much as 14 per cent before closing 10.5 per cent lower on the day for the loss of another $US390 million of market value and another $US225 million of paper losses for Trump.
The looming September 19 end of the lock-up provisions that have prevented Trump from selling any of his shares hangs over the market, although Trump couldn’t sell any of those shares without further imploding Trump Media’s share price.
The immediate reaction in the market, however, said the debate had a very direct effect on its share price.
Trump’s conversion from crypto hater to crypto enthusiast (his sons, Donald Jnr and Eric, are planning to launch their own cryptocurrency start-up) has been embraced by the crypto sector, which is particularly enthused by his ambition of making the US the centre of the crypto universe.
On Wednesday, Bitcoin was trading at $US56,510 when the debate started. It slumped to $US55,591 by the end of the day before recovering almost all that lost ground in early Thursday trading. Other crypto assets were also affected in the immediate aftermath of the debate.
The US dollar also fell slightly against other major currencies before also recovering. Trump has had another conversion, going from wanting a weak dollar to drive US exports to now wanting to punish countries that trade in currencies other than the dollar, which would, if it could ever be imposed, strengthen the dollar.
Trump’s policies are supposed to be good for energy companies, health insurers and corrections companies.
Energy stocks were down slightly on Wednesday, despite a slight gain for oil prices, as were the major private healthcare companies and prisons companies. In contrast, entities with exposure to solar technologies benefited from Harris’ performance, with the Invesco Solar ETF price up more than 6 per cent.
Of the two candidates, Trump’s policies would have the greatest potential to move markets.
Shares in Trump’s media company have been tied to his White House prospects. Credit: Bloomberg
His plan to not just extend the corporate and personal tax cuts he implemented in 2017 but cut rates even further would have a very positive impact on the profits of the larger corporates and the incomes of wealthy Americans.
His trade policies – a 10 to 20 per cent baseline tariff on all imports and a 60 per cent duty on imports from China – would be a tax on American consumers (despite his beliefs) and would likely reignite inflation and lead to higher interest rates.
That would probably hit retailers and consumer products companies, smaller businesses (who tend to carry more debt) and existing holders of US bonds (as interest rates go up bond prices fall).
It could also see the US dollar strengthen as global investors fled from the chaos and economic destruction that a global trade war would create to the traditional safe haven of the dollar.
If, as Trump has said he wants, were to gain some level of influence or control over the Federal Reserve Board’s decision-making and investors lost trust in US monetary policy, the consequences would be unpredictable but probably quite chaotic.
If Trump were to win, he wouldn’t necessarily need Congressional approval to pursue his trade agenda. That would be a good reason to be short of any exposure to China, emerging markets or Europe.
A Harris win wouldn’t be as disruptive – Goldman Sachs has said her agenda would boost the economy whereas Trump’s would hurt growth.
The extra revenue she would have from allowing Trump’s 2017 tax cuts to expire next year and then, if she could get it through Congress (which is a big “if”), raising the corporate tax rate and those for the ultra-wealthy while targeting her spending at middle-income and lower-income households and small businesses means much of her agenda would be funded.
A Harris presidency, if implemented, would, however, add an estimated $US1.2 trillion (and probably more) to America’s already spiralling government debt over the next decade. Trump’s would add closer to $US6 trillion.
For most of this year discussion of the implications of the US presidential election were dominated by analysis of the potential Trump trades. After Wednesday’s debate, investors might now have to at least give some thought to whether there are prospective Harris trades.
The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.