Tag Archives: Trump

Should I change my investments during an election?

Posted By |
LowrieFinancial.com
By Steve Lowrie, CFA
Special to the Financial Independence Hub
Back during the Clinton/Trump U.S. presidential election four years ago, I ended up fielding a lot of questions from investors of all political bents. Many investors wondered whether they should adjust their portfolio in response to the change of the guards. At the time, I had this to say: 
  • Post pubBack during the Clinton/Trump U.S. presidential election four years ago, I ended up fielding a lot of questions from investors of all political bents. Many investors wondered whether they should adjust their portfolio in response to the change of the guards. At the time, I had this to say: 

“If you want to skip reading my more detailed explanation, the answer is: No. Even when political news is strongly felt, there will likely never be a good time to shift your investments — neither in reaction nor as a defence. First, no matter how certain one or another outcome may seem, how the market is going to respond to the news remains essentially unknown. Second, by the time you’ve heard the news, it’s already priced into the market anyway.”

Fast-forward to 2020. To say the least, a few things have changed!  But my advice remains the same: From one election to the next, other factors have exhibited a far greater impact on investment returns than which person or party holds the U.S. presidency. Whether leadership is more or less conservative, largely efficient markets have usually figured out a way to shift and grow, either way.

As we can see in this interactive chart from Dimensional Fund Advisors, these results are well-documented. They also make a lot of sense, given something called “stage-one and stage-two thinking.”

Thinking in Stages

Stage-one and stage-two thinking are terms popularized by economist Thomas Sowell in his book, “Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.” Basically, before acting on an event’s initial (stage one) anticipated results, it’s best to engage in stage-two thinking, by first asking a very simple question:

“And then what will happen?”

By asking this question again and again, you can more objectively consider what Sowell refers to as the “long-run repercussions to decisions and policies.”

Who will next occupy the various seats of power around the globe, and what might the results be? Stage-two thinking helps us see past the usual proliferation of stage-one predictions that call for anything from financial ruin to unprecedented prosperity.

As financial author Larry Swedroe describes in a US News & World Report interview, “Stage one thinking occurs when something bad happens, you catastrophize and assume things will continue to get worse … Stage two thinking can help you move beyond catastrophizing … [so you can] consider why everything may not be as bad as it seems. Think about previous similar circumstances to disprove your catastrophic fears.”

Timeles lessons in terminal uncertainty

In the 2020 U.S. presidential race, we’re seeing prime examples of both dire and exuberant financial forecasts, presumably premised on who wins the election. The truth is, nobody has a clue what all the combined market-moving forces have in store for us in the near term, because nobody can know the answer to Sowell’s convoluted market-moving question: And then what will happen? Continue Reading…

Connecting Dots

Posted By |

By John De Goey, CFP, CIM

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

The distinction between solid analysis and wonky forecasts can be tiny.  As a Portfolio Manager who has spent more than his fair share of time dealing with the media, I am highly mindful of the need for the fifth estate to look for controversy as clickbait.  As the saying goes, opinions are like noses – everybody has one.  The question this begs is “just how credible are the opinions we’re hearing these days”?

Theme 1: Worst is over for Covid-19 storm

There are two themes that I have been hearing a fair bit these days.  The dominant (but by no means universally-held) view in the financial media seems to be the storm has passed, the worst is over, and markets have already resumed an upward trajectory.  The other theme is that, with protests throughout the U.S., and increased sensitivity to Black Lives Matter, a massive bout of unemployment and record-breaking outbreaks of COVID-19, Donald Trump’s chances of re-election are teetering between slim and none.

Theme 2: If Biden wins, expect scaleback of Trump tax cuts

What I find interesting is that so few commentators have taken the time to link those two presumptive trends.  I say that because there’s a strong first-derivative consensus that should Joe Biden become President of the U.S., he will almost certainly repeal or at least significantly scale back the Trump tax cuts – and likely institute a wealth tax on the ultra-rich to boot.  If those things happen, pretty much everyone thinks it’ll be bad for the American stock market.

My question, therefore, is: “how do so many intelligent, forward-looking people think we can have strong capital markets when it looks increasingly probable that Biden will win in November?”  I have gone on record a number of times to say I think markets are dangerously overvalued.  That remains my position.  What is adding to my concern in July, 2020, is that we’re less than four months away for a Presidential election and the presumptive Democratic nominee is toying with a double-digit lead in the polls… and that no serious commentator thinks the American economy will not take a hit if the lead translates into a victory.  My sense, therefore, is that a number of financial commentators are opining that WANT Trump to win even though most of them don’t think he’ll be able to pull it off.  Analysts seem to be talking with their hearts; not their heads.

John De Goey, CIM, CFP, FP Canada™ Fellow, is a Portfolio Manager with Winnipeg-based Wellington-Altus Private Wealth Inc. John works from the Toronto office. This blog originally appeared on the firm’s “Newswire” site on July 10, 2020 and is republished on the Hub with permission.

My Review of “A Warning” by Anonymous

Posted By |

Based on the arrival of my library copy of “A Warning” this weekend, it’s clear that the controversial book about Donald Trump written by “Anonymous” is now in wide circulation, and hence there will soon be a new wave of reviews.

Recall that what amounted to a sneak preview of the book came late in 2018 after the New York Times departed from normal practice and published an opinion piece credited only to “A Senior Trump administration official” that gave an inside look at what those unfortunate enough to be subordinate to Trump have to endure on an almost daily basis. Talk about the worst job in the world!

At 250 pages it’s a quick read. At one level, and as a friend of mine who also got an early copy remarked, there’s not that much new to anyone who has been following this train wreck of a presidency on CNN or MSNBC.

Indeed, many of the early reviews based on pre-release copies gave us a good flavour of what you can expect in this book. My favourite passage in the book used not the imagery of a train wreck but an even more dramatic one of air traffic control. To wit:

‘The day-to-day management of the executive branch was falling apart before our eyes. Trump was all over the place. He was like a twelve-year old in an air traffic control tower, pushing the buttons of government indiscriminately, indifferent to the planes skidding across the runway and the flights frantically diverting away from the airport.’

The book includes eight chapters, beginning with the collapse of the steady state (you remember the “grownups” who were supposed to act as guard rails, many now since departed), moves on to Trump’s numerous defects in character, his Fake Views, his Assault on Democracy, his weakness for Strongmen, and a chapter on how he has divided America with a “New Mason-Dixon Line.” Then he surveys the apologists and his enablers who put ambition and fear over service to country, and ends with an appeal to the Electorate.

Surprisingly, the author isn’t that keen on the prospect of impeachment: even though the book is current enough to include the early innings of the Ukraine scandal. Instead, and perhaps sensibly, the appeal is to American voters to come to their collective senses and vote him out in the 2020 election.

Three years too late?

A cynic might quip that the very title “A Warning” comes at least three years too late. But for anyone who believes another four years of this madness will all but destroy American democracy, the title is apt if understated. Perhaps a Trumpian superlative would be an improvement: something like “An Urgent Warning.” Continue Reading…

How (not) to trade US midterm elections: you can’t Trump staying the course

Posted By |
Investors should avoid making major portfolio changes in advance of the US midterm elections, says former advisor Dale Roberts

By Dale Roberts

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

When I was an advisor at Tangerine Investments I would have many more-than-interesting conversations with clients about short-term economic and political events; especially over Donald Trump. For those of you who do not live under a rock, Donald Trump is the more than controversial President of The United States. Mr. Trump went from real estate magnate and reality TV show host to the most important chair in the world. Many will write and say that the President who resides over the world’s largest and most influential economy and the world’s most powerful armed forces (by many times over) is the most ‘powerful person’ in the world.

So as investors, and for those who manage money, we should pay attention to what the most powerful person on earth does and says, right?

Nope.

As investors, we don’t invest in Presidents or Prime Ministers, we invest in economies and the companies that help drive those economies. With respect to investing in the U.S. the world’s greatest investor, Warren Buffett, often writes …

Never bet against America.

And heading into the Presidential elections of 2016 Mr. Buffett (a vocal Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter) offered in a Nasdaq interview …

“America works … I’ve said this before, it’ll work wonderfully under Hillary Clinton, and I think it’ll work fine under Donald Trump … For 240 years it’s been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start.”

Ahhh, and there’s the very powerful and destructive key phrase tucked into that sentience; the two words “bet against.” If you make a short-term move, make a guess on a short term event, you’ve just turned investing into betting/gambling. You’ve turned investing into trading. As the saying goes, on the list of the world’s most successful investors you won’t find any traders.

Successful investors have a long-term outlook and a long-term holding period. Boring works. Excitement is for the casino. When asked what is his favourite holding period for a stock or investment Mr. Buffett will reply “forever.”

So don’t listen to me, but you might listen to the word’s greatest investor: who often states that he has never invested based on a short-term economic event or economic prediction or political event or political commentary.

An investor with a well-balanced portfolio will likely invest in US and International markets. When we invest in America we often own market-leading companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Walmart, Home Depot, McDonald’s, Coke and Pepsico, Costco, Amazon, Google, Netflix, AT &T, Exxon Mobil, Clorox, Facebook, Colgate-Palmolive, Goldman Sachs, and even Mr. Buffett’s conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway.

You’re not investing in Donald Trump, you’re investing in McDonald’s.

Investors can ignore the midterm elections

If you now understand that you don’t need to pay attention to the current President of the United States, you also do not need to pay attention to the next President of the United States, nor do you need to pay attention to the next group of Congresswomen and Congressmen and Senators who will fill the seats of The House of Representatives. You can ignore the midterm elections on Tuesday November 6th, 2018. You can ignore the Presidential election that will follow two years later. Continue Reading…

Canadian Trade Relations: The wrong place at the wrong time

Posted By |

By Jeff Weniger, CFA, WisdomTree Investments  

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

The 24-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has never been this close to death, but a resolution could be behind the storm clouds.

Souring trade relations with the U.S. are a shame, because Canada got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Consider figure 1. President Donald Trump wants to make a dent in the US$388 billion annual trade deficit with China and, to a lesser extent, the yawning gaps with Mexico, Germany and Japan. But to show strength to them economically and North Korea militarily, he believes he has to treat even friendly actors such as Japan and Canada like hostile players. That became apparent when the U.S. administration imposed global steel and aluminum tariffs, and Canada wasn’t exempted.

Figure 1: Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit/Surplus (USD in Millions)

Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit/Surplus

Talks are starting to get personal, with U.S. President Donald Trump accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of making false statements at a June news conference after G7 leaders met amicably. The Canadian leader then got relatively tough, responding that “Canadians … will not be pushed around.”

With the world’s two best friends in a lovers’ quarrel, the US$13 billion annual U.S.-Canadian trade gap, a rounding error, is somehow a political issue. It could have been resolved over golf.

But not all is lost. Ottawa would be wise to consider — if it is legal — scrapping NAFTA for a bilateral trade agreement with Washington.

Canada ill-advised to sit at table with Mexico

That’s because Canada is ill-advised to sit at the table with Mexico to try to strongarm the U.S. Not now, in 2018, given Mexico’s own specific troubles. Frankly, Mexico’s negotiating calculus is much weaker than Canada’s. The country went to the polls July 1, and leftist Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) won.  He won’t help Canada one bit because it isn’t politically palpable for him to shoot for a quick resolution. Hostility to the U.S. — or at least standing ground against Washington — has been a political winner for the Latin American “pink tide”1 for years. Playing the tough-talk game with Trump will be one of AMLO’s key rallying cries, and it can only cripple NAFTA. Continue Reading…