PMC Weekly Review – November 19, 2018
Last week’s midterm elections ended total Republican control in Washington , as the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives. With some significant help from a skewed Senate map, in which Democrats and their allies had to defend 26 seats against the Republicans’ nine, Republicans held onto (and almost certainly increased) their majority in the Senate, pending the results of elections in Florida and Mississippi. This gave President Trump enough reason to claim victory in this election as he fended off a complete ‘Blue Wave .’
Historically, the president’s political party tends to lose congressional seats in the midterm elections, because the opposing party is more motivated to get out and vote. However, this time it was different—both parties produced an increase in voter turnout. In the weeks leading up to the election, the President pursued a strategy designed to shore up support amongst his base. President Trump campaigned with other Republicans on the ballot and tried to focus voters’ attention on immigration and border security issues, which are controversial between the two parties. The President’s comments around stopping a caravan of migrants, many of whom he claimed are ‘gang members and some very bad people,’ and his actions of moving an additional 5,200 troops to beef up border control proved to be a wedge issue for both sides. Additionally, the highly polarized Judge Kavanaugh (now Associate Justice) hearings likely contributed to centrist Democratic senators’ losses in red states in the Midwest.
The controversial administration and set of issues at stake led to the largest voter turnout in a midterm election since 1966, according to early estimates from the United States Election Project, as more than 48% of eligible voters cast their ballot versus only 36.7% in 2014. With more than 113 million people voting this year, the turnout is actually closer to what we see in presidential years (i.e., 139 million people voted in 2016) versus normal midterm years. Voters were more energized than we have seen in a long time, as many important seats around the country were in close races, and people were determined to make a difference in the face of strong opinions about the President. According to the Washington Post, in at least 13 states and in some counties, including Travis County, Texas, more people voted during these midterm elections than in the Presidential race in 2016. This impressive turnout highlights the continued polarization of America.
Not only are voting Americans becoming more divided, but so are the politicians who represent them. Republicans in Congress are becoming more conservative, and Democrats are leaning further to the left, as the battle between love and hate of the controversial President creates two sides, which are less inclined to compromise. A split-party Congress tends to operate in gridlock, which should make for interesting policymaking during the next two years. Much of President Trump’s agenda most likely will face a stalemate within Congress; however, the increased Republican majority in the Senate should allow an easier road for the President to appoint conservative judges to the bench.
Despite any roadblocks, when looking at history over the last 60 years, a split-party Congress actually tends to be the best scenario for the stock market. The average cumulative gain during each two-year election cycle tallied 18.7% when there was a split Congress, versus only 17.3% when there is unified control between the President and Congress. In fact, ‘Gridlock is good’ has been the saying when linking politics to the stock market. Perhaps it is because nothing is done or undone, and politics is not getting in the way of stock market gains. It remains to be seen whether that maxim will hold this year. On the downside, the trade war rhetoric out of Washington puts pressure on global economic growth and business confidence. Additionally, growth may slow in the face of a split Congress, as it will be harder for Republicans to pass additional fiscal stimulus policies, such as tax cuts or increased spending. However, this may induce the Federal Reserve to be less hawkish with its interest rate hikes, which should take some pressure off of the appreciating US dollar and act as a tailwind to equity markets. Regardless, much remains to be seen in this presidency, with many wild cards still to come, as the political landscape in the US has intensified over the past several years, and the US equity bull market seems to be closer to the end than the beginning.
Monica Senglemann, CFA
The information, analysis, and opinions expressed herein are for general and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this weekly review is intended to constitute legal, tax, accounting, securities, or investment advice, nor an opinion regarding the appropriateness of any investment, nor a solicitation of any type. All investments carry a certain risk, and there is no assurance that an investment will provide positive performance over any period of time. An investor may experience loss of principal. Investment decisions should always be made based on the investor’s specific financial needs and objectives, goals, time horizon, and risk tolerance. The asset classes and/or investment strategies described may not be suitable for all investors and investors should consult with an investment advisor to determine the appropriate investment strategy. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Information obtained from third party sources are believed to be reliable but not guaranteed. Envestnet|PMC™ makes no representation regarding the accuracy or completeness of information provided herein. All opinions and views constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice.
Investments in smaller companies carry greater risk than is customarily associated with larger companies for various reasons such as volatility of earnings and prospects, higher failure rates, and limited markets, product lines or financial resources. Investing overseas involves special risks, including the volatility of currency exchange rates and, in some cases, limited geographic focus, political and economic instability, and relatively illiquid markets. Income (bond) securities are subject to interest rate risk, which is the risk that debt securities in a portfolio will decline in value because of increases in market interest rates. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are subject to risks similar to those of stocks, such as market risk. Investing in ETFs may bear indirect fees and expenses charged by ETFs in addition to its direct fees and expenses, as well as indirectly bearing the principal risks of those ETFs. ETFs may trade at a discount to their net asset value and are subject to the market fluctuations of their underlying investments. Investing in commodities can be volatile and can suffer from periods of prolonged decline in value and may not be suitable for all investors. Index Performance is presented for illustrative purposes only and does not represent the performance of any specific investment product or portfolio. An investment cannot be made directly into an index.
Alternative Investments may have complex terms and features that are not easily understood and are not suitable for all investors. You should conduct your own due diligence to ensure you understand the features of the product before investing. Alternative investment strategies may employ a variety of hedging techniques and non-traditional instruments such as inverse and leveraged products. Certain hedging techniques include matched combinations that neutralize or offset individual risks such as merger arbitrage, long/short equity, convertible bond arbitrage and fixed-income arbitrage. Leveraged products are those that employ financial derivatives and debt to try to achieve a multiple (for example two or three times) of the return or inverse return of a stated index or benchmark over the course of a single day. Inverse products utilize short selling, derivatives trading, and other leveraged investment techniques, such as futures trading to achieve their objectives, mainly to track the inverse of their benchmarks. As with all investments, there is no assurance that any investment strategies will achieve their objectives or protect against losses.
Neither Envestnet, Envestnet|PMC™ nor its representatives render tax, accounting or legal advice. Any tax statements contained herein are not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding U.S. federal, state, or local tax penalties. Taxpayers should always seek advice based on their own particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
© 2018 Envestnet. All rights reserved.