When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

What A Trump Or Clinton Victory Would Mean For Markets

While markets have already expressed short-term preferences for the respective U.S. presidential candidates, the long-term impact is harder to gauge.

A file photo of fluctuating currency prices in Buenos Aires
A file photo of fluctuating currency prices in Buenos Aires
José Siaba Serrate


BUENOS AIRES — Stock markets are said to anticipate the preferences of voters. Business is business, and markets always look to tomorrow, which is then factored into today's values. The problem is that the future is unclear and often inscrutable, and markets are not infallible. Brexit, the nose of traders assured us, would never happen.

The U.S. election presents another murky perspective, with even bigger stakes.

The longest running and farthest reaching campaign in history — judging by the media coverage — offers one advantage, namely the ample information provided on the degree of market sensitivity to the two very different contenders: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Their starkly contrasting figures facilitate market readings, and while one cannot know with certainty who will win, we have an idea of the reactions each would provoke — at least right away. A taste was given by rising share prices in response to Trump bungling the first presidential debate, and the boost given to the Clinton candidacy.

If Trump were to win, Wall Street and stock markets in the UK and Asia would likely fall between 10 and 15%, oil would lose four dollars a barrel and the Mexican peso would plummet 25%. There would be a significant rise in volatility.

That is the "precise" conclusion reached by Justin Wolfers and Eric Zitzewitz at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), after examining the feedback registered from the performance of financial assets, after the first debate on Sept. 26. Conversely, the sudden turn in the campaign prompted by the FBI reopening its inquiry in the Clinton emails, confirmed the reactions to a sudden upturn in the polls of the Republican candidate.

Generally speaking, Clinton squares with a more solid economy and Trump is associated with high and persistent risks. There is no Republican "bonus" now with Wall Street, which has swept away the market's past preference for the Grand Old Party. Wolfers and Zitzewitz believe an implicit "Trump discount" will push stock prices down between 9-12%.

The fed hedges too

One should nevertheless distinguish between the immediate impact of the election result and its lasting implications, especially when it comes to any adverse effects. Brexit, for example, prompted a storm of volatility that soon lost its intensity, before discarding almost all its effects within weeks. Does that mean Brexit was irrelevant, and that its effects are over? Certainly not. The real, weighty consequences will emerge as the United Kingdom and European Union hammer out the conditions of their divorce.

The short-term dynamic here illustrates the so-called "black swan" phenomenon — those improbable, difficult-to-predict events with unexpected and sweeping effects. Given the fragile state of the world economy and markets, stock prices on the verge of overvaluation and brittle geopolitical conditions, this is not the time to make waves. The post-Lehmann Brothers markets have shown a propensity to sudden shutdowns, as shown by a half dozen crash-like episodes since 2010 and abrupt price drops that have for now, thankfully, proved ephemeral. Still, nobody can be sure any event will not trigger a domino effect.

It is natural to qualify a Trump victory as a repeat of Brexit, though with a crucial difference: Those in the UK who sought to break away from Europe mostly dissolved out of public life after winning. Nigel Farage, the head of the United Kingdom Independence Party, resigned from his position once results were announced. Brexit was a defeat for the establishment, but the elite remained in place in the form of a Conservative government tasked with managing the departure process.

Trump is another story. His populist agenda is just a part of the problem, which Congress can dilute. Of greater concern is the possibility of his filling the administration with utterly inexperienced functionaries.

Will the Federal Reserve trigger an interest rate hike in December? Futures markets think it is 75% probable. But monetary policy is conditional, and there may be no increase if Trump unleashes an economic and political storm. In response to Brexit, the Bank of England lowered its rate, eased credit supplies, promised tax cuts (yet to happen), then crossed its fingers.

If investors think it is 75% probable that the Fed will raise rates, it must be because they think it equally probable that Mrs. Clinton will become president of the United States.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


The Trudeau-Modi Row Reveals Growing Right-Wing Bent Of India's Diaspora

Western governments will not be oblivious to the growing right-wing activism among the diaspora and the efforts of the BJP and Narendra Modi's government to harness that energy for political support and stave off criticism of India.

The Trudeau-Modi Row Reveals Growing Right-Wing Bent Of India's Diaspora

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G20 Summit in New Delhi on Sept. 9

Sushil Aaron


NEW DELHICanadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has brought Narendra Modi’s exuberant post-G20 atmospherics to a halt by alleging in parliament that agents of the Indian government were involved in the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian national, in June this year.

“Any involvement of a foreign government in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil is an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty,” Trudeau said. The Canadian foreign ministry subsequently expelled an Indian diplomat, who was identified as the head of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India’s foreign intelligence agency, in Canada. [On Thursday, India retaliated through its visa processing center in Canada, which suspended services until further notice over “operational reasons.”]

Trudeau’s announcement was immediately picked up by the international media and generated quite a ripple across social media. This is big because the Canadians have accused the Indian government – not any private vigilante group or organisation – of murder in a foreign land.

Trudeau and Canadian state services seem to have taken this as seriously as the UK did when the Russian émigré Alexander Litvinenko was killed, allegedly on orders of the Kremlin. It is extraordinarily rare for a Western democracy to expel a diplomat from another democracy on these grounds.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest