As the 'Lesser of Two Evils,' a Clinton Win Would be Better for Markets
Robert Powell - USA Today
go to original
June 8, 2016
The FT's Dan McCrum explains how the US Republican nominee might be responsible for some of Mexico's negative economic indicators. (Financial Times)
Would the market fare better under a President Donald Trump or a President Hillary Clinton? That’s the question investors of all kinds are asking now that Trump and Clinton are the presumptive nominees.
The answer, according to some of the nation’s top market experts: President Clinton. And, the reason can be summed up in two words: Trade war.
“I think expectations are that the economy would do better under a Clinton presidency,” says Sam Stovall, managing director of S&P Global Market Intelligence. “Since she would take a less hostile position toward our trading partners, particularly China and Mexico, her administration could focus more on growth than protectionism.”
Others share this point of view. “At this juncture, I believe the market would fare better under Clinton, in part, because we don’t know enough about a Trump administration and the potential adverse consequences of trade wars,” says Bob Doll, senior portfolio manager at Nuveen Asset Management.
Meanwhile, another expert says Wall Street dislikes both candidates, but ultimately prefers Clinton. “From the financial markets' standpoint, the choice between Clinton and Trump is really a choice between the lesser of two evils,” says Bob Johnson, the president and CEO of the American College of Financial Services. “Neither candidate is an attractive candidate from the perspective of Wall Street.”
Read the rest at NWCN
We invite you to add your charity or supporting organizations' news stories and coming events to PVAngels so we can share them with the world. Do it now!