US elections – Industry reactions

With the US midterm elections out of the way, analysts, portfolio managers and fund buyers have been busy putting out their initial reactions in regards to what this may mean for investors.

InvestmentEurope has collected these and ongoing comments below.

 

David Page, Senior Economist at AXA IM, said: “At the time of writing, the votes of yesterday’s midterm elections were not fully counted and some counts may be days away with at least one vote likely to need a recount. However, the results were clear enough: Democrats won a majority in the House for the first time since 2010; Republicans look likely to modestly extend their lead in the Senate (polls suggesting a 53/54 Republican versus 46/47 democrat (and independents) split).”

“This was in line with our expectations and most major polls. Early thoughts (some 6-months ago) of a Democrat ‘wave’ election that would have delivered both the House and Senate had faded in recent months, particularly as president Trump’s approval rating rose and Republican voters became more energised in the wake of the contentious Kavanaugh appointment.”

“However, large turnout for young voters (18-29 year olds, 67% voted Democrat) and a strong bias for women voters (59% voted Democrat) provided a significant shift, which left Republicans unable to retain the House. While midterm elections are unlike Presidential elections, many saw this vote as different and a CNN exit poll suggested that two-thirds of voters said their vote was about president Trump, with more stating opposition than support. That said, though this provides some indications for the dynamic for the 2020 presidential elections, midterms elections have historically not proven great predictors of future presidential votes.”

“The return to a mixed Congress for the first time in four years has a number of implication for policy and the economy over the coming two years.”

“Major policy initiatives now likely face political gridlock. The Republican direction of a second Tax Reform bill and the prospect of making some of the temporary tax cuts in the first bill permanent is now off the agenda. While progress may be made on issues with regards international sanctions, we now see agreement over immigration issues as much harder to achieve. In terms of policies more directly impacting the economy, we think there is little prospect of legislation that requires significant federal spending. One area of discussion regards an infrastructure bill, which is independently supported by both president Trump and Democrats. However, we believe that the two sides would want to achieve different things from such a bill and any revival of opposition fiscal rectitude from Republican deficit hawks will make funding such a bill difficult. Moreover, Democrats may see an incentive in delaying support for such a bill with hopes that they would have more control over the agenda in two years’ time.”

“The regular fiscal set pieces are now likely to face more fractious battles for approval. This may begin as early as 7 December, when the current continuing resolution expires. Late-September’s funding bill funded the majority of government spending for the coming financial year (until September 2019), including defence, labour, health and education departments. The small remaining minority faces a 7 December deadline for approval, which could be extended into next year. The fact that most of government is funded for the fiscal year would reduce the economic impact of any government shutdown that occurred over this spending round. However, this might encourage a symbolic battle. Thereafter, spending agreement for financial year 2020 from around the summer of next year could also prove difficult. The debt ceiling is also reinstated from March 2019 and will likely be reached in the summer, although we do not expect a delay in adjusting the debt ceiling.”

“Trade policy may be affected by the midterm results. We consider the outlook for trade policy uncertain, evens after these midterms, with White House motives for trade policy still unclear. However, with the immediate short-term political focus removed, we see some hopes for a period of reconciliation between the US and China and we hope for some progress in the end-November meeting betweenpPresidents Trump and Xi.”

“As such, while our baseline forecast assumes tariffs are increased to 25% (in January) on the $200bn of Chinese imports currently covered at 10%, we do not expect the US to fulfill its threat of applying additional tariffs to the remaining $267bn. This may provide a modest boost for markets. However, looking further into 2019 we see the prospect of the US raising tariffs on autos and auto parts (although excluding Canada, Mexico, Japan and the EU, which should individually be protected by bilateral deals). Moreover, our broader concern is that if political gridlock blocks the passage of legislation, the president may return to a policy that has proven quite successful to date and one that he can carry out, in the main, by Executive Order. Hence, we fear that the White House may return to protectionism later in 2019 or early 2020 in the run up to the Presidential elections, even if there is a modest hiatus in tensions over the coming months.”

“Democrats gaining control of the House means they take control of the initiation of impeachment hearings. Much uncertainty still surrounds the outlook for the Mueller investigations and we have been surprised at the relative silence from this quarter in recent months. Perhaps with the political landscape now clear there will be more disclosure of progress. If these investigations find anything, the Democrats, now with control of the House, control the process to initiate impeachment. Besides what Mueller’s investigation discovers, there is also a political calculus involved in pursuing impeachment hearings and it is not obvious that new House speaker Pelosi will take this path, recognising how divisive it may prove with possible repercussions for the upcoming presidential elections. However, any such political decision would now sit with Democrats.”

“With votes not fully counted, financial market reaction has so far been tentative. Moreover, with the results coming in broadly in line with expectations, there should have been little reaction. However, while 2-year yields were stable at 2.91%, 10-year yields fell by 5bps to 3.18% and the dollar was 0.6% lower against a basket of currencies. Insofar as we would have expected yields, the dollar and equities to have moved higher on a Republican surprise, this modest correction lower probably reflects the small probability of this outcome being priced out of markets.”

“Looking further ahead, we do not expect a more marked reaction to this political news. Future market moves are likely to be governed by policies chosen as a result of this election. As we believe trade policy will be affected in the short and medium term, we also see the prospect for announcements on this front boosting risk assets over the coming months, but it is still likely to be a long-term headwind. Beyond that, our expectation of ongoing solid expansion in US economic activity in 2019 (forecast 2.3%) should still be supportive of some stabilisation and rebound from a sharp correction in October. However, as we look through 2019, the outlook for the cycle and our outlook for a material deceleration in US economic activity in 2020 are likely to become the dominant drivers of financial market performance.”

 

Richard Buxton, head of UK equities and manager of the Merian UK Alpha Fund, Merian Global Investors, said: “Democrats winning the House is likely to mean slightly less fiscal stimulus going forward. The bond market may take that well because the Federal Reserve will have less work to do. That would be good news for emerging markets – with fewer rate rises ahead and a dollar that’s not so strong. This in turn would provide some relief to emerging markets. It should generally be a more constructive environment for risk assets.”

 

Jan Dehn, head of research at Ashmore Group, said: “The US mid-term election outcome was broadly in line with expectations as the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, while the Republicans retained the Senate. The surprise, if any, was the greater than expected margin of victory for the Democrats in the House.”

“The most obvious implication for EM is that the second of three major risks, which have been holding back investors from returning to EM local markets in H2 2018, is now behind us (and has had a favourable outcome). The first of these risks was the Brazilian election (which also had a fortunate outcome from an investment perspective). The third and final risk this year is position squaring, which typically occurs towards year-end, but which has no lasting or fundamental implications. In short, the green light for EM local markets just got significantly greener.”

“In addition to eliminating an important source of uncertainty, the passing of the mid-term election has three additional implications, which are also broadly positive for EM. First, the US political horizon now lengthens to two years as politicians begin to focus on the 2020 election. The key to success in 2020 is going to be to keep the US economy going, so rationally Republicans should now push the Trump Administration to pursue more cautious economic policies, particularly with respect to trade.”

“Secondly, the overall political landscape will clearly become noisier as Democrats look to launch various investigations into Trump. This may act as a constraint on the Executive, forcing a moderation in policies.”

“Thirdly, although the probability of additional fiscal stimulus is far from zero, since the Democrats may support infrastructure spending, the likelihood of very large stimulus measures has now declined. For example, Trump’s promise of a 10% tax cut for the middle class now looks dead. As such, investors should revise their growth expectations for the US lower and the Fed may do so as well. The probability of recession is also higher at the margin.”

“All in all, these factors will weigh on the dollar and support EM currencies”

 

Richard Larner, head of Research at Brooks Macdonald, said: “Today’s result will affect the US political environment, but on its own it does little to change our broader market view. It supports our house view that the tailwinds acting to strength the dollar are lessening, as we expect greater oversight of Trump’s administration to reduce the support the currency has seen from protectionist trade policy and pro-growth fiscal reforms (albeit we recognise the potential positive effects that would be associated with any infrastructure investment programme). This should be to the advantage of assets which benefit from a weaker dollar, such as emerging markets equities.”

“We do not believe we have witnessed a systemic deterioration in the investment environment, but we expect more episodes of market volatility as the global monetary policy backdrop shifts further from quantitative easing towards quantitative tightening. We retain our preference for equities over fixed income, both on valuation grounds and as a result of specific policy headwinds facing the latter. Nevertheless, given the many risks to the outlook we continue to endorse a balanced approach to portfolio construction, utilising alternative income-producing assets to increase portfolio diversification.”

 

Eric Veiel, head of US equity at T. Rowe Price, said: “It may be tempting for investors to try to link election results to market outcomes, but there is really no consistent relationship between which party is in charge and long‑term investment success.”

Alan Levenson, chief US economist at T. Rowe Price, said: “We are not going to see big fiscal stimulus such as tax cuts or huge spending increases because what has been done so far has already blown a big hole in the budget, and the economy is still strong.”

David Giroux, T. Rowe Price’s head of investment strategy, said: “Going into 2020, investors should be more reticent of the potential for a change in administration and what that could mean for markets, the economy, healthcare, energy, defence, and merger and acquisition activity. We have had a very pro‑business, anti‑regulation, tax‑cutting administration that has been very good for the stock market. Some would argue that is why we have had such strong economic and wage growth this year. If we have a change in regime, that could reverse some of these policies and have a knock‑on effect on the economy and stock market. The market is forward-looking, so as we think about 2019 and 2020, that possibility will become a factor.”

 

James Rowlinson, head of Fund Selection at Mazars, said: “The outcome in the House was very much as expected, although it looks like Republicans will pick up 3-4 Senate seats, likely putting the Senate out of Democrat reach until at least 2022.”

“Yes, markets would likely have rallied initially had Republicans kept the House, but although Republicans may have had another stab at further tax cuts, it is highly doubtful they could have been positive for earnings in the way the recent legislation was. As such, the Democratic House victory should not have a big effect beyond the very short term.”

“There is a suggestion that oversight may hamper Trump to soften his aggressive trade stance, thus market positive. Indeed Congress will likely vote on the NAFTA deal (newly renamed US-Mexico-Canada Agreement) in early 2019, although it was an area where Trump’s approach seemed to be working. Markets will really be hoping that this result will help avoid further escalation of trade scuffles with China, although the replacement of moderate Republicans in the House, several of whom had distanced themselves from Trump, by more left leaning Democrats may not have the effect expected. That said the combination of extra investigations and greater oversight from Democrats does reduce the chance of a tail risk disaster scenario in our opinion.”

“Infrastructure and drugs prices are areas where there is genuine possibility of bi-partisan reform. However we are wary on the infrastructure side, with Democrats likely to be focused on transport, while Republicans more interested on energy infrastructure. This said, drugs prices is an area I think both sides will be able to find some agreement on, as it was an area Republicans would likely have attended to if they had kept the House, such that pharmaceuticals exposure would appear more risky.”

“Everyone is talking about equity markets, however the combination of a Democratic House eager to pass some legislation, but unlikely to cut any entitlement programmes, and a president for whom fiscal responsibility is clearly not a priority, could be further detrimental to the nation’s debt pile, potentially sending Treasury yields higher. Senate Republicans should be a moderating factor in this, but a budget battle and government shutdown is a distinct possibility.”

 

Chief global strategist John Vail at Nikko Asset Management, said: “The Democrats did a good job of selecting House candidates, many of whom are women with military backgrounds, to defeat GOP incumbents, so the House will be controlled by the Democrats, which will make Trump’s life miserable for the next two years, with many deep House committee investigations into his affairs, which could well lead to impeachment. Incriminations, however, will likely fly from both sides, as Trump will likely appoint a much more partisan Attorney General.”

“The GOP increased its majority in the Senate by several seats, which will make confirmations of judges and administration officials  easier and overriding his vetoes harder. It will also make conviction of Trump, if impeached by the House, less likely.”

“The chances of an impeached, but not convicted president being re-elected seems unlikely, but not impossible in this uncertain world. In such a situation, Trump might not even wish to run again, and in any respect, the chance of GOP presidential victory in 2020 seem much diminished. This may well mean higher taxes and more business and environmental regulations after 2020.”

 

Edward Smith, head of Asset Allocation Research, Rathbones, said: “The final votes are still being counted but it’s clear that the Democrats have won control of the House while the Republicans have extended their majority in the Senate.”

“If this midterm election was a referendum on Trump’s presidency, the results were inconclusive. In fact the Republicans lost fewer seats in the House than the historic relationship between a president’s approval rating and his party’s performance in the midterms would have predicted (see chart): it looks like the Republicans have lost around 35 seats but Trump’s approval rating suggested the loss should have been more like 40. The Democrats were always likely to face an uphill battle in the Senate: while all 435 seats were up for election in the House, only 35 were up in the Senate, 26 of them belong to Democrat incumbents! Of those 26, 12 had a significant chance of swinging to the Grand Old Party (GOP), but only six seats held by Republican incumbents had a chance of swinging to the Democrats.”

 

“Without a House majority, Trump’s legislative agenda is dead in the water – basically most things which involve government expenditure and revenue. So possibly no further tax cuts, no big cuts to Medicaid or food stamps, no further repeal of Obamacare. US governments rarely reverse the previous one’s tax changes outright. We don’t expect a significant change in the size of the budget deficit, but at least a small redistribution away from the very wealthiest beneficiaries of Mr Trump’s tax plan seems inevitable.”

“The Democrats flipped the House by picking off suburban Republican incumbents with centrist candidates. As the results became clear, House Minority leader Nany Pelosi (now the Majority leader, although she may step down) said her priorities were lowering drug prices and building better infrastructure. These fit with the Republican agenda too, and Pelosi said she wants to work with the Republicans not against them. However, the House are in charge of starting investigative and disciplinary proceedings against Trump and his appointments. Expect a lot of this over the next two years – it could drive some market volatility. But impeachment is a red herring. The party bringing the impeachment proceeding needs both a House majority and a supermajority in the Senate.”

“Trump only requires Senate, not House, approval for judicial or cabinet appointees. The big risk is that Trump, hamstrung on Capitol Hill and unable to enact the remaining legislative policies on his to do list may now focus all of his attention on the one thing for which he doesn’t require Congressional approval: stoking the trade war.”

“Now to be clear, there just aren’t enough data points to draw firm conclusions from the historic performance around midterm results. In other words, this time may be different (heaven forbid). But let’s be careful not to overestimate the magnitude of the impact on financial markets and, in particular, equity sectors, now that the Democrats have retaken the House. Investors may just be glad to get back to studying earnings reports and economic releases. After all, the third year of a President’s term has delivered the most consistently positive returns.”

“Analysing the last 50 years, we find evidence that US equities tend to be rather directionless in the six months before a midterm election (much like this year), with a little extra volatility (again, much like this year). Over the subsequent six, equities tend to rise steadily (see chart). But here’s the rub: it doesn’t seem to matter one jot whether or not either party loses, gains, keeps or never had control of Congress in the first place.”

“2006 was the one incidence of a Republican president losing control of both chambers in Congress – the S&P 500 still went up. We plotted the market reaction to five midterms when a Republican president controlled neither chamber – before or after the election – and the general pattern is still there. The idea pushed by some commentators that Democrats in Congress is bad for business is not supported by equity market performance.”

“We found no evidence that midterms alter the path of US equities relative to global equities. The dollar doesn’t appear to deviate from the path it was already set on and there’s no pattern to dollar performance and which party does well, poorly or indifferently.”

“We’ve dug into sector performance too and again no pattern emerges. Defence, healthcare and banking corporations are businesses that operate in politically sensitive environments, but the midterms don’t appear to make an impact. The defence sector, for example, underperformed the broader market after the Republicans retained control of Congress in 2002; it outperformed a touch when the Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006.  Given that there is bipartisan support for lowering drug prices and improving infrastructure, we expect to see this impact related stocks.”

 

Joshua Roberts, associate at JCRA, the independent financial risk management consultancy, said: “With the Democrats in control of the House, key public spending cuts such as the repeal of the Affordable Care Act will be called into question. In turn, this is likely to reduce President Trump’s scope for further tax cuts.”

“Paradoxically, that may be a positive for the US economy. To date, Trump’s tax cuts appear to have lit a rocket under GDP growth, which came in at 4.2% and 3.5% respectively over the last two quarters. But with productivity growth lagging well behind (in Q3 2018 it was only 2.2%) the Federal Reserve has become increasingly concerned that the figures represent an overheating economy that is vulnerable to inflation. The Fed are still in rate hiking mode, but it is time to look beyond that and understand when that might turn to interest rate cuts.  Hedging decisions both on interest rates and FX need to look beyond the next 18 months as we could be in a very different economic environment.”

 

Ken Taubes, CIO of US Investment Management at Amundi, said: “We are not expecting any significant immediate market reaction, however the prospect of key legislation will determine future market evolution. Fixed income markets could come under some pressure if the president and Congress approve a new stimulative fiscal program, however we expect 10 year yields to remain around the current levels in the coming months.”

“For equities, the historical precedent has been for markets to underperform ahead of the midterm elections and then rally until year-end. We expect this trend to be continued. After the midterm election, moving towards 2019, equity markets will shift their focus more to fundamentals such as earnings sustainability. The outlook is still positive for US equity in 2019, but with a strong focus on selection as the economic and financial cycles mature.”

 

Paras Anand, head of Asset Management, Asia Pacific, Fidelity International, said: “For once, the outcome of the midterm elections has gone the way the pollsters and political analysts expected, with the Democrats taking the House of Representatives and the Republicans retaining their marginal hold on the Senate.  In what will be seen by some as an inevitable reaction against an unconventional White House, the question is whether there is anything for investors to consider in this result.”

“Perhaps not in the short term. However, as we go through 2019 we might look back and see this result as a further impetus to domestic growth.”

“Part of the reason for the post-2016 election ‘Trump bump’ was the belief that the economic agenda would be domestically focused, particularly on infrastructure investment. However, there has been limited progress in this area as other issues – tax reform (achieved) and healthcare reform (failed) – have taken precedence.”

“During the 2016 Clinton election campaign, infrastructure spend was high on the Democrat’s policy agenda (as it was for Trump). It is possible that with a bi-partisan focus on the pent-up need for domestic infrastructure investment, the Democrat view on the budget deficit may change from opposition (to tax cuts) to accommodation (spending on roads, hospitals, airports).”

“Any development in this direction would further spur the overall economy, continue to push wages in an already tight labour market, and potentially challenge the current expectations around the Federal Reserve’s activity for next year. Most political events have an underwhelming economic impact – could the US midterms prove the exception?”

 

David Roberts, co-manager of the Liontrust Strategic Bond fund, said: “US midterms: surprisingly unsurprising. After a run of elections where polls and forecasts proved wrong, we finally have one go to plan, so it’s no surprise that market reaction is muted. A split Congress is OK, if not great, for risk assets from equity to high yield bonds. Forecasts for that split in part account for the October stock rout and should be a small positive for US sovereign bonds. Thankfully, within our strategic funds we had added a few US Treasuries – and we’ve started to sell already!  So will the rest of 2018 be quiet? Trump, tariffs and trade, Brexit, Italy and the ECB exiting QE suggest otherwise. Volatility – as an active manager, got to love it!”

 

Scott Krauthamer, global head Equity Product Management at AllianceBernstein, said: “With Congress split between the two major political parties, we think it’s unlikely that major new legislation will find its way to president Donald Trump’s desk before the 2020 presidential election. For example, Democratic control of the House effectively dashes any chance of a second round of tax cuts—a scenario that could temper the upside potential for US equities. But with Republicans holding the Senate and the presidency, there’s little chance that Congress will be able to roll back recent changes and raise tax rates, either.”

“Democrats may decide to promote infrastructure spending, an initiative that Trump once also cited as a priority. But it’s not clear that Democrats and Trump will be able to work together, nor is it certain there will be bipartisan appetite for another burst of fiscal stimulus so soon after a 2018 tax reform package that’s estimated to add some $1.5 trillion to the budget deficit by 2027. It’s worth keeping in mind, though, that Trump will retain the ability to issue executive orders that have the force of law, a process that lets him bypass Congress.”

“Also, a change of leadership in the House isn’t likely to have much effect on Trump’s trade policies and the tensions they’ve caused. This is because Congress has over the years delegated much of its trade authority to the executive branch. If the US and China were to reach a deal to end their trade dispute, Congress would be required to vote on it. But in the absence of a formal agreement, trade policy is up to the president.”

“The Federal Reserve made it clear before the election that the US economy is strong enough to warrant additional rate hikes well into 2019. We don’t think the election results change that.”

“We expect the Fed to deliver another 25-basis-point increase in December and four more hikes next year. That will present some challenges for asset markets. But continued Fed transparency about its intentions should help to temper overall market volatility.”

“With the US economy doing well, the split election results may be the best of all possible outcomes for financial markets. Historically, gridlock has been good for equity markets. Looking back through 1928, the S&P 500 Index has delivered average annual returns in the double digits during years when Democrats and Republicans shared control of Congress.”

“Within equities, healthcare may be a beneficiary of divided government, as it would likely mean no major changes to the Affordable Care Act or drug pricing. And static fiscal policy should relieve a source of upward pressure on long-term Treasury yields. Even so, trade tensions and tighter monetary policy will keep markets volatile. We still believe—as we did before the elections—that market returns are likely to be lower in the years ahead. This environment makes it essential to enhance performance with high-conviction insights and active positioning.”

 

Aberdeen Standard Investments senior investment manager James Athey, said: “This is the outcome that financial markets expected so they’ve barely reacted. Markets will move quickly to speculate on how this result may embolden Trump’s foreign policy, since it’s the most obvious area where he can operate largely without Congressional support. Their focus will probably be on this month’s G20 summit for signals of which way he’ll turn now on the trade war with China, or indeed how willing China might now be to return to the negotiating table.”

“Trump now finds himself in a counter-intuitive position. The one thing he cares about most is his core voter base but the election result leaves him having to focus his energy abroad to keep those at home happy. That means he needs to strike a balance. The trade war is probably already hurting the companies that many of his core voters work for. So he needs to hector those beyond the US border with caution lest his voters cotton on that his policies are hurting them. That could mean he tries to seek a deal with China, who it seems now really need one to help draw a line under their recent economic weakness.”

“Regardless of whether Trump does strike a deal with China, this is no turning point in his presidency. There’s been some talk that the result could restrain him and this seems dangerously naïve to me. By any measure this has been a venal election campaign that is just another reminder of how divided US politics is. Investors are a long way off understanding what the economic cost of this division is, but one will be borne eventually.”

 

Jameel Ahmad, global head of Currency Strategy & Market Research at FXTM, said: “The reality of the outcome from the mid-term election results that Democrats will take control of the House while Republicans hold the Senate has not created too much volatility for financial markets.”

“Investors were reasonably well positioned for this outcome before the event, therefore it hasn’t been as much of a nervous few hours for investors as some political events have been in recent history. The USD has edged gradually lower against many of its counterparts over the course of this week, with this related to expectations that the Democrats winning some influence could provide some legislative resistance towards Trump further pushing forward pro-America policies.”

“The eventuality that the Democrats have fallen short of achieving a ‘blue wave’ has prevented the worst-case scenario for financial markets from occurring. It was always going to be a long shot due to its unlikely probability, but there were concerns that the Democrats winning control of the Senate would have ramped up the chances of president Trump being impeached. This would have been the most unfavorable outcome for investors despite its low probability, because it would have run the risk of sparking wild financial market volatility and potential black swan events.”

“What matters moving forward is whether this change of play represents enough uncertainty around political ‘gridlock’ that it will weigh on the USD. The Greenback itself remains at historically very strong levels and does appear overvalued against many of its global counterparts, however it is not clear whether this result will create enough change to foreign and trade policy decisions that it would encourage investors to seriously unwind USD positions.”

“At the moment we do see some near-term pressure on the USD but the jury is very much out for how long this could last. This depends on whether a shift in power could actually influence Trump’s policies from being passed through legislation.”

“The Greenback has edged lower against most of its counterparts in Asia at time of writing, and this form is being replicated across most of the G10 as European trading is set to get underway. But investors would need to see some fundamental shifts that the outcome in the mid-terms could really change matters behind the scenes to receive the needed encouragement to drag the Greenback further lower moving forward.”

 

Seema Shah, global investment strategist, Principal Global Investors, said: “With the mid-term election outcome having gone broadly in line with expectations, markets can refocus on the major macro risk: the path for U.S. interest rates and the next steps in the trade war, both of which are unlikely to be significantly impacted by this election result.”

“Indeed, while a Republican sweep may have allowed for an additional tax cut next year, driving interest rates higher, there is unlikely to be any major tax legislation under a divided Congress. It is true that both President Trump and congressional Democrats both support infrastructure programs, but the significant differences in the details will likely prevent any deal from taking place. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine the Democrats supporting such a concept given that it would surely strengthen President Trump going into the 2020 presidential election.”

“The trade war is also little affected by this election. After all, confronting China over its approach to trade, investment, technology and – most importantly – its bid for global dominance is one of the few things both Democrats and Republicans generally agree on. If anything, with President Trump likely to be frustrated by policy gridlock, he may concentrate even more on trade agenda where he enjoys executive powers, raising the risk that he takes on a more aggressive stance towards China.”

“Clearly healthcare will be a top issue going forward and this is the sector where we will likely see the greatest market reaction from the election outcome.”

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jonathan Boyd
Editorial Director of Open Door Media Publishing Ltd, and Editor of InvestmentEurope. Jonathan has over two decades of media experience in Japan, Australia, Canada and the UK. Over the past 17 years he has been based in London writing about funds and investments. From editing the newsletter of the Swedish Chamber of Commerce in Japan in the 1990s he now focuses on Nordic markets for InvestmentEurope. Jonathan was awarded Editor of the Year at the Professional Publishers Association (PPA) Independent Publisher Awards 2017. Shortlisted for the same in 2016, he was also shortlisted in 2017 and 2015 for the broader PPA Awards category Editor of the Year (Business Media).

Read more from Jonathan Boyd

preloader
Close Window
View the Magazine



I also agree to receive editorial emails from InvestmentEurope
I also agree to receive event communications for InvestmentEurope
I also agree to receive other communications emails from InvestmentEurope
I agree to the terms of service *


You need to fill all required fields!