
By John De Goey, CFP, CIM
Special to Financial Independence Hub
The interplay between politics and economics has never been starker. We have an American President who is doing more to stick his nose into the affairs of those that are supposed to be at arms length than any of his predecessors ever dreamed.
Despite this, people who offer commentary on both the economy and capital markets (they are separate things) act as though what’s going on on Capitol Hill is so unremarkable that they conspicuously fail to work any acknowledgement of the dysfunction into their commentary.
Last week, I sat in on a webinar hosted by Jeff Schulze, CFA, who is managing director, head of economic and market strategy for Clearbridge Investments. In his presentation, Schulze noted that the S&P 500 is currently trading at 23 times forward earnings and that only the late 1990s saw a higher number. He added that there has been recent downward pressure on the federal funds rate and opined that the ‘one big beautiful bill’ will offer further fiscal stimulus down the road.
In a dashboard of 12 indicator variables, only one was flashing red (recession). Four were yellow (neutral) and seven were green (expansion). He went on to opine that corporate profits don’t look recessionary. He concluded that a near-term recession is unlikely. I’m not disputing his economic evidence: I’m simply noticing that there was not a word about political implications or developments. That silence strikes me as conspicuously odd.
There are many smart people who look closely at all manner of economic indicators who also look the other way regarding politics. As if they are not related. Why is that? They don’t talk about what’s going on Capitol Hill at all. The topic is taboo. It’s “polarizing.” Some even allege it’s beyond the purview of their mandate. I disagree.
EMH vs Active Management
The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) posits that capital markets do an excellent job of digesting all available information (from all fields of endeavour) quickly and accurately. By synthesizing information into a consistent worldview, EMH implies that no one can reliably ‘beat the market’ through security selection or timing strategies.
The economic forecast offered by Clearbridge seemed predicated on the assumption that what’s going on in Washington is normal, but it also seemed predicated on market inefficiency since Schulze made multiple references to the need for active management. If the market is efficient, then it is already reliably taking the dysfunction in Washington into account. If, on the other hand, it is inefficient, then the vagaries of an unpredictable President stand out as being meaningful and should be noted. So if the conduct of the President is a meaningful consideration, why wasn’t it mentioned by a guy who implicitly rejects EMH? Continue Reading…








