CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Ana Patricia Botín, World Travel & Tourism Council
. Santander Buys Back its AM Unit From Warburg Pincus and General Atlantic
After Santander and Unicredit decided not to merge its Asset Management branch with Pioneer Investments –which would have given them over 400 billion in assets under management, Santander has reached an agreement to buy back the 50% stake Warbug Pincus and General Atlantic bought back in 2013.
The deal, for an undisclosed amount, will give Santander full control of Santander Asset Management, which in 2013 was valued at 2.05 billion.
In a statement to Spain’s financial regulator, the CNMV, the spanish bank mentioned that, as part of the deal, the parties are considering a sale of Allfunds bank, confirming previous rumors. Santander, Warbug Pincus and General Atlantic, currently own 50% of the business, while Italian Intesa Sanpaolo holds the other 50% stake of Allfunds. Santander created Allfunds in 2000 to help financial institutions get access to so-called open architecture funds. Italian lender Intesa acquired a stake in 2004 as part of Allfunds’s international expansion. The company has offices in Spain, Italy, the U.K., Chile, Colombia, Dubai, Luxembourg and Switzerland andcould be valued at about 2 billion euros ($2.2 billion) and attract interest from private equity firms.
Allfunds reported profit of 69 million euros in 2015, up from 46.4 million euros a year earlier, according to the company’s financial report.
Santander Asset Management has over 170 billion euros in AUM and presence in 11 countries. Santander Asset Management has over 755 employees worldwide, of which around 220 are investment professionals. they expect that in 2018 this operation will give them a ROI above 20% and above 25% for 2019.
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Joe Le Merou. Muzinich's New Hires Prepare Two Fund Launches
Corporate debt specialist Muzinich & Co is to launch two new funds to be managed by Torben Ronberg, Stuart Fuller, Sam McGairl and Alex Woolrich, the loans team who recently joined from ECM Asset Management Limited, a Wells Fargo Asset Management company.
Ronberg and his team, who took up their posts this week, will now prioritise the launch of a new European senior secured loans vehicle, the Muzinich European Loans Fund. They are also putting the foundations in place for the launch of a multi-asset vehicle, the Muzinich Senior Secured Fund, which will have a broader investment mandate. This vehicle will primarily invest in senior secured loans and senior secured high yield bonds, combining the core strengths of the joining team with that of the established team at Muzinich.
Both funds will sit under Muzinich’s Irish-domiciled ICAV, which has been established as a Qualified Alternative Investment Fund. They will be aimed primarily at pension funds, insurance companies and other institutional investors.
George Muzinich, founder and Chairman of Muzinich, said: “We’re thrilled to welcome Torben and his team, who have worked together for over a decade and established an outstanding reputation in the industry.”
Ronberg said: “We have built a 10-year benchmark-beating track record, delivering strong single-digit annualised returns through senior secured loan strategies. We’re confident that this asset class can continue to deliver attractive risk-adjusted returns. We believe there’s growing interest in senior secured loans from pension funds and other institutional investors. Senior secured loans offer attractive all-in floating rate returns, so they provide some protection against interest rate rises.”
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Mark Morgan. Frenzied M&A Activity to Support Event Driven
October was a supportive month for Global Macro funds, which almost erased their year to date losses in a single month. According to LyxorAM’s Cross Asset Research team, the top contributors to their stellar performance last month included a short duration stance in fixed income and long positions on the USD vs. EUR and GBP in FX. Meanwhile, for Macro managers investing in equities, their preference for European and Japanese equities vs. US equities also paid off in October.
With regards to Event-Driven, Lyxor noted that the strategy underperformed on the last week of October (-0.3%) and is down almost 1% last month. “It is not surprising to see the strategy in the red when 10-year Treasury yields jump 25 bps in a month, as it has historically been negatively correlated to bond yields. But most managers were fairly resilient despite the adverse market conditions.” They state.
Going forward, the team maintains their slight overweight stance on Event-Driven, with a continued preference for merger arbitrage players. “We believe that the strategy can cope with higher bond yields as its net exposure to both equities and bonds has continued to decrease lately. Managers have thus ample room to deploy capital as opportunities arise. And in that regard, Bloomberg data suggests that October was one of busiest months ever for global M&A activity.”
Announced M&A deals represented more than USD 470bn (applies to deals with a transaction value above USD 400m). US M&A activity represented 60% of the total, and the media sector has been the most active thanks to deals such as the USD 107bn proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner. Yet, ahead of US elections most Event Driven managers stayed cautious and waiting for greater political clarity before deploying their capital. “The strategy is thus likely to be resilient if equity volatility continues to rise, which would lead to wider deal spreads and open the door for cash deployment.” They conclude.
SEC Chair Mary Jo White, after nearly four years as the agency’s head, today announced that she intends to leave at the end of the Obama Administration. Under Chair White’s leadership, the Commission strengthened protections for investors and the markets through transformative rulemakings that addressed major issues highlighted by the financial crisis. The Commission also instituted a new approach to enforcement that has resulted in greater accountability and record actions through, among other things, the use of admissions of wrongdoing and enhanced data analytics and technology.
Chair White, who became the 31st Chair of the SEC in April 2013, will be one of the SEC’s longest serving Chairs.
“It has been a tremendous honor to work alongside the incredibly talented and dedicated SEC staff members who do so much every day to protect investors and our markets,” said Chair White. “I am very proud of our three consecutive years of record enforcement actions, dozens of fundamental reforms through our rulemakings that have strengthened investor protections and market stability, and that the job satisfaction of our phenomenal staff has climbed in each of the last three years. I also want to express my appreciation for the engagement and dedication of my fellow Commissioners and my financial regulator colleagues, past and present.”
In addition to completing the vast majority of the agency’s mandates under the Dodd-Frank Act and all of its mandates under the JOBS Act, Chair White’s leadership has advanced the agency’s mission through other critical rulemakings and built robust and effective frameworks for the SEC’s regulatory regimes going forward.
“My duty has been to ensure that the Commission implemented strong investor and market protections, and to establish an enduring foundation for future progress in the most critical areas – asset management regulation, equity market structure and disclosure effectiveness,” said Chair White. “Thanks to the hard work and dedication of the SEC’s staff, we have accomplished both.”
Chair White drove many important rules and other policy measures to completion. Under her leadership, the Commission advanced more than 50 significant rulemaking initiatives, including:
Fundamental reforms to the money market fund industry and unprecedented new disclosures and protections for mutual fund investors in a major initiative to strengthen regulation of the $67 trillion asset management industry
Enhanced equity market structure oversight, including wide-ranging new controls on how key market participants handle technology and systems issues
A comprehensive framework for enhancing the effectiveness of corporate disclosure for investors
Extensive new safeguards for the financial system and for investors in the more than $7 trillion security-based swap market
New ways for smaller companies to raise capital needed to grow their businesses
New post-crisis restrictions on proprietary trading and investments by broker-dealers and other financial institutions through the Volcker rule
Major enhancements to transparency and risk management for asset-backed securities, which were a significant contributor to the financial crisis
Strong operating standards for the clearing agencies that stand at the center of our financial system
Extensive reforms to the regulation of credit rating agencies and how they address conflicts of interest that can harm investors
First-ever regulatory framework for municipal advisors who are critical to the capital raising activities of thousands of local governments
Modernized rules of practice for conducting administrative proceedings, including providing expanded rights of discovery
To enhance accountability of those who violate the securities laws, Chair White implemented the Commission’s first-ever policy to require admissions of wrongdoing in certain cases where heightened accountability and acceptance of responsibility is appropriate. Thus far, the Commission has required admissions from more than 70 defendants, including 44 entities and 29 individuals.
During Chair White’s tenure, the Commission brought more than 2,850 enforcement actions, more than any other three-year period in the Commission’s history, and obtained judgments and orders totaling more than $13.4 billion in monetary sanctions. The Commission charged over 3,300 companies and over 2,700 individuals, including CEOs, CFOs, and other senior corporate officers.
The record number of enforcement actions over the last three fiscal years against companies and senior executives involved many “first of their kind” cases in asset management, market structure and public finance. Other major cases involved insider and abusive trading, violations of anti-corruption rules and misconduct in accounting and financial reporting. In the last year alone, the Commission brought a record 868 enforcement actions. And for the first time, the Commission devoted significant resources and emphasis on using cutting edge data analytics to uncover and investigate misconduct resulting in numerous enforcement actions involving insider trading, asset management and complex financial instruments.
As a result of the successful whistleblower program, the Commission has awarded more than $100 million, since inception — virtually all during Chair White’s tenure — to whistleblowers who provided key original information that led to successful enforcement actions.
Under Chair White’s leadership, the Commission made significant enhancements to its examination program, including increasing staff by about 20 percent by hiring new examiners where funding permitted and redeploying staff from other program areas to heighten focus on the fast-growing investment management industry.
The exam program also increased its use of advanced quantitative techniques to enable examiners to detect misconduct by more quickly analyzing large amounts of data. Over the past year, the examination program conducted more than 2,400 formal examinations of registrants, an increase over each of the prior seven fiscal years. The Commission also enhanced technology in its examination program through the National Exam Analytics Tool (NEAT), which enables examiners to analyze large volumes of trading data much more efficiently.
Chair White serves as a member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and on several other domestic and international organizations, including the International Organization of Securities Commissions, the Financial Stability Board, the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation Monitoring Board, the Financial and Banking Information Infrastructure Committee, and the Federal Housing Finance Oversight Board.
Chair White added, “It has been and will always be critical for this agency and the public that the SEC remain truly independent. That independence is crucial to our ability to protect investors, safeguard our markets and facilitate the capital formation that fosters innovation and the growth that is essential to our national economy.”
Prior to her arrival at the Commission, Chair White spent decades as a federal prosecutor and securities lawyer. As the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1993 to 2002, she prosecuted cases involving complex securities and financial institution frauds, other white collar crime and international terrorists. She also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and was Chief Appellate Attorney of that office’s Criminal Division. She served as Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York as well as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney. In private practice, she was a litigation partner and chair of the litigation department of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, overseeing more than 200 lawyers. Chair White is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the American College of Trial Lawyers.
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Antonio de la Mano, Flickr, Crative Commons.. The European Commission Wants to Align the Application of PRIIPs and MiFID II
The European Commission announced on November 9th that it will take the necessary legal steps to postpone the PRIIPs Regulation for 12 months. The announcement aligns the dates of application of PRIIPs with MiFID II.
The European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) stated in a press release that they very much welcome the proposal by the Commission to delay the application date of the PRIIPs Regulation by 12 months.
In order to do so, the European Commission will publish its proposals in an amending draft Regulation, which must be quickly passed by Parliament and Council if the existing 31 December 2016 application date is to be successfully pushed back by one year.
“There is only one reason why we considered a delay absolutely essential, and this is because it is materially impossible and simply unrealistic for product manufacturers and distributors to meet the original 31 December 2016 deadline.”
A postponement therefore proved necessary and will now materialise in a more realistic timetable to comply with the Regulation.
They believe that this delay will allow companies to appropriately implement the new rules.
“Equally important is the fact that this postponement will also ensure more time is available for solutions to be found on the revised RTSs. Allowing past performance, and fixing the misleading methodology of transaction costs must absolutely be addressed. This remains a crucial part of ensuring the KIDs’ success.” EFAMA concluded.
Looking in the near term, Morgan Stanley Global Fixed Income continues to expect an environment of dampened interest-rate volatility, which means a good environment for carry. “We expect contrasting forces of slow but stable global growth but perhaps higher inflation expectations to keep long-end rates trading in a range with a slight upward bias.” They explain.
However, given ongoing policy reconsiderations at central banks and a predilection to believe global growth will be higher next year is wary of sharp curve steepening and thinks underweights in risk-free rates provide a good hedge to carry oriented strategies.
“We remain optimistic about the prospects for emerging markets (EM) fixed income for the remainder of the year as fundamentals, technicals and the macro environment remain supportive,” the firm states, adding that, the various factors both pushing and pulling investors into EM fixed income remain in place: Developed market yields remain very low, economic data in EM appears to have stabilized, fears of multiple Federal Reserve (Fed) rate hikes have subsided and concerns of a sharp slowdown in China have diminished. However, Morgan Stanley Global Fixed Income believes U.S. elections reflect a major event risk for some key EMs and the outlook for global trade.
“Accommodative policy and low global yields remain supportive of global credit, particularly U.S. credit, and we continue to believe the strong technical environment in global credit markets suggests a slow grind tighter into year-end. We remain cautious, however, as we enter the last quarter of 2016, and continue to watch for potential risks,” they conclude.
The views and opinions are those of the author as of the date of publication and are subject to change at any time due to market or economic conditions and may not necessarily come to pass. The views expressed do not reflect the opinions of all investment personnel at Morgan Stanley Investment Management (MSIM) or the views of the firm as a whole, and may not be reflected in all the strategies and products that the Firm offers.
All information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be deemed as a recommendation. The information herein does not contend to address the financial objectives, situation or specific needs of any individual investor.
Any charts and graphs provided are for illustrative purposes only. Any performance quoted represents past performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. All investments involve risks, including the possible loss of principal.
Prior to making any investment decision, investors should carefully review the strategy’s/product’s relevant offering document. For the complete content and important disclosures, refer to the link above.
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Sam Valadi. Trump Vote Wrong- Foots Forecasters
The result of the US presidential election, like that of the UK referendum on the EU, went against the predictions of most opinion pollsters, who had put Hilary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, slightly ahead prior to the actual vote. What currently seems the likely victory of Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, was in defiance not only of the pollsters, but also of many investors’ expectations.
Overturning predictions, Trump won key swing states of Florida, Ohio and North Carolina on his path to the White House. Forecasters have been wrong-footed, and there could be increased volatility in markets while investors digest this new information, and wrestle to understand the implications of a Trump presidency.
Trump is in many ways an unknown quantity, and his presidency could spell a period of uncertainty for investors. We shall be monitoring markets closely, but it would be reasonable to expect, in the short term at least, a sell-off in equities, not only in the US but also internationally. The immediate reaction of equity markets was negative, with Asian indices falling. The US dollar also fell, down 3.4% against the Yen as at 5:20am London time.
The dollar has come under pressure, both because a hike in interest rates by the US Federal Reserve now seems less likely, and also because investors may place a higher risk premium on US investments. Volatility across many asset classes could increase in the short-term.
Looking further ahead, several of Trump’s policies, for example his protectionism, his desire to scrap existing international trade deals, and to deport illegal immigrants, have the potential to contribute to longer-term market volatility; but others, for example his plans to slash taxes, including reducing the business rate from 35% to 15%, his plans to encourage repatriation of corporate profits held offshore, and to embark on massive infrastructure spending, could stimulate the US economy, lifting equities. Much is uncertain, not least because his campaign promises have been long on rhetoric and short on policy detail.
Given the intense degree of attention on the election, and its undoubted political importance, it may seem surprising that within the global equities team at OMGI we made no attempt to predict its result. We are not in the business of trying to predict events that are very hard to predict. Striving to forecast a binary (either/ or) event such as a close-run election is, in our view, not a good way to invest. We have built our investment process on other –we believe sounder– principles.
Macro events and geopolitical events, like the US election, affect our investment process implicitly rather than explicitly. They impact the market, and this is the key for us. We are much more interested in how the market is behaving because that gives us the clues as to how we should position our portfolios.
A Stable Process
Our investment process involves developing a view of how the stock market is behaving. We have to be very aware of the direction of the market, the volatility of the market, and of the ways in which individual stocks’ returns differ from each other. How, and to what degree, do stock returns vary from each other? How great is investors’ appetite for taking risk? Are investors comfortable exposing themselves to higher degrees of risk, in the hope of achieving higher returns, or are they much more risk averse, shunning risk and seeking the safety of stocks of higher quality? Those kinds of questions are being asked all the time within our portfolio investment process. That leads us to the stocks that we will want to buy.
US Equities Not Cheap
Recently, US equities have generally not been cheap in valuation terms, though many of the companies in this market are high quality, so one might expect to pay a higher price. Parts of the US market are particularly expensive relative to the average. For example, large caps (shares in larger companies) tend to be more expensive than small- and mid-caps (shares in small and medium-sized companies): this is partly because large caps are international, but also because they receive large inflows from investment funds that track indices (the largest of which track baskets of large caps). Other areas of the market that have become more expensive are dividend payers (shares which pay out high levels of dividends to shareholders), and low volatility (shares which move up and down less than the overall stock market).
In my view, active managers have a great opportunity at the moment because there is a lot of mispricing in North America. Although North America as a whole is not cheap, there are cheap areas of North America that can be exploited by investors who are nimble enough.
Ian Heslop is Head Of Global Equities at Old Mutual Global Investors and Manager of the Old Mutual North American Equity Fund.
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Bradley Weber. The Morning After: What Now For Markets?
In a shocking development reminiscent of Brexit, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, was elected the forty-fifth president of the United States on Tuesday, 8 November. In addition, Republicans maintained control over both houses of Congress.
Trump’s unexpected victory brings with it a great deal of policy uncertainty, given his lack of specificity during the presidential campaign. Judging by the tone of his campaign, one can surmise that foreign trade will likely be a major focus of the new administration. It is quite unlikely that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be ratified against the present backdrop, while the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) could be renegotiated or even abandoned. Uncertainty over immigration policy is likely in the near term, which could potentially impact labor markets.
On the campaign trail, President-Elect Trump vowed to lower taxes and repeal the Medicare tax on investment income. He also promised to repeal the complicated alternative minimum tax, while taxing carried interest as ordinary income. Corporate tax rates would be reduced to 15% from 35%, and repatriated foreign profits would be taxed at a one-time rate of 10%, if Trump’s plan is enacted. Economists, however, question whether this package would spur enough economic growth to offset lost revenue from lower tax rates, which could widen fiscal deficits.
Sectors that may be advantaged under a Trump presidency include:
Fossil fuels: Trump repeatedly promoted US energy independence during the campaign, calling for leasing federal land for energy exploration, repealing some regulations on coal and reviving the Keystone XL pipeline project.
Pharmaceuticals: Price controls will be less of a concern for the industry than they would have been under a Clinton presidency.
Financials: Trump has called for repealing or significantly revising Dodd-Frank. Regulatory burdens could be reduced across the economy, based on his campaign rhetoric.
Trump’s focus on trade during the campaign and the risk that NAFTA might be revisited could pressure the currencies of two of the US’s largest trading partners, Mexico and Canada. Additionally, emerging market currencies will likely be pressured, since any additional US trade barriers would probably further slow the growth of global trade, which could negatively impact both producers of raw materials and of finished goods.
If the US puts trade barriers in place on imports, US exporters may be hurt as a result of trade partners retaliating against US actions. With roughly 40% of earnings from S&P 500 Index companies earned outside the US, there appear to be significant risks to US-based multinationals. A full-fledged trade war would be damaging to growth and employment, and could have ripple effects beyond US borders. Companies whose business is more domestic in nature may fare better against a backdrop of global trade friction. If financial markets have a persistently negative reaction to a Trump victory in the run-up to the December FOMC meeting, odds of an interest rate hike could shrink.
A front-loaded agenda
Given the political ebbs and flows of recent decades, it is reasonable to expect Republicans to try to pack as much policy change into the first two years of a Trump presidency as possible, much as Democrats did in the first two years of the Obama administration. In 2009–2010, Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress and passed a large economic stimulus package and the Affordable Care Act. Oftentimes, when one party controls both Congress and the White House, voters perceive political overreach and seek to balance the scales during the midterm elections.
In 1994, President Bill Clinton’s Democrats lost both the House and the Senate and never regained congressional control during the balance of his two terms. Losing control of one or both houses in the midterms would limit Trump’s ability to achieve his agenda, suggesting that policy change could become more incremental later in his term.
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Federico Mena Quintero
. Maitland Restructures its Institutional Client Team
Maitland, a global advisory and fund administration firm, has announced a major organisational restructure of the leadership team of its institutional client services arm. The management team will now reflect the five fund services products on offer – Traditional Fund Services, Transfer Agency, Hedge Fund Services, Private Equity & Real Estate Fund Services and ManCo Services.
The move reflects Maitland’s impressive expansion over recent years, both in terms of size and geographical reach as well as breadth of internal expertise and talent. The product approach empowers each product head to drive all aspects of the delivery to clients, both in terms of day-to-day service as well as longer-term strategic alignment.
The entire institutional product offering will be led by Jim Clark, who joined Maitland in May 2014 from State Street and brings over thirty years of industry experience to the role. The TFS team will be led globally by Rob Leedham, with Guido Frederico leading the South African business. TA and HFS teams are led globally by Mark Bredell and Ben Pershick respectively while Bruce McGlogan will head up the PERE team as it builds on its current period of success in Europe and South Africa.
Steve Georgala, CEO of Maitland, said: “Maitland is a unique firm in terms of its product capability and breadth of services we are able to offer institutional clients. We are delighted to have a leadership team full of deep industry experience, with each member bringing substantial knowledge and expertise to their domain. Our focus is to stabilise the areas of Maitland that have enjoyed substantial growth recently, whilst continuing to actively grow products and regions where our offering is attracting considerable market interest. Given this, it made sense to restructure our organisation to reflect our client-centric approach, and to empower our business leaders to deliver the best service possible. These are exciting times for the company.”
CC-BY-SA-2.0, FlickrPhoto: Colleen P. How will Bond and Currency Markets React to the US Election Result?
With the latest polls suggesting the race to become the 45th President of the United States is neck and neck. Bond and currency managers around the world are currently trying to assess how a win for either candidate might affect their portfolios. M&G’s Anthony Doyle offers his best estimate as to what might happen.
A Clinton win
A Clinton victory is seen by the markets as a continuation of the current US political environment, particularly if the Republicans retain control of the House of Representatives. This would be the most benign scenario for bond and currency markets as measured by price volatility. Following a Clinton win, the bond market would likely price in a higher probability of a move in interest rates, with the removal of perceived political uncertainty paving the way for a Fed rate hike in December. The US dollar stands to be the main beneficiary of this change in market pricing in the immediate future, though any gains are likely to be measured.
In a Clinton win scenario, bond prices across the Treasury curve would likely remain under pressure in the coming weeks given the high chance of a rate hike, rising inflationary pressures, and the possibility of an easier fiscal policy stance by a Clinton administration. A Clinton win is not likely to radically alter bond investors or economists views on the outlook for the US economy. If Clinton is able to implement easier fiscal policy in the US in the medium term, US growth and inflation would likely increase, meaning a rise in term premiums and a steeper yield curve.
A Trump win
A Trump victory would result in heightened volatility across a number of markets given the uncertainty around what the implications are for the US economy. Following the result, risk aversion would likely increase meaning a rising US dollar, lower bond yields and a weaker US high yield corporate bond market. In the fixed income universe, emerging market bonds and currencies would likely be hit the worst in this environment given Trump’s tough stance on China and Mexico. This market reaction could look similar to previous US risk-off events such as the 2008 financial crisis, the 2011 loss of the US government AAA rating, and the 2013 taper tantrum. Equally, should the Fed push ahead with a rate hike in an uncertain political environment, we may see an adverse reaction in markets similar to the 2014 rate hike.
Turning to credit markets, Trump’s proposal of a repatriation tax holiday would likely be positive for US investment grade corporate bonds at the margin and may lead to a reduction in corporate bond issuance. It is estimated that companies hold almost $1trn offshore, with around 60% denominated in US dollars. The big question is how companies would use this cash: will they pay out special dividends to shareholders? Will they increase capital expenditure and expand their operations? High yield companies would be less affected, as most companies have domestic sources of revenue.
Over the medium term, Trump’s proposals on large tax cuts for all is the equivalent of a large Keynesian injection of cash into the economy which would benefit economic growth but also raise inflation. The implementation of trade barriers would also be inflationary, as import prices rise from current levels. Immigration reform means the already tight US labour market would tighten further, leading to higher wages. Fed policy would need to counteract the rise in inflation, meaning much higher interest rates and a bear market for bond markets. The US treasury market would return to a world of higher yields and a much steeper yield curve. In this environment, the US dollar would likely strengthen given the contrasting monetary policy stance with other developed market economies. A Trump win would be good for government bonds in the short term, bad for bonds in the long term.
The bottom line
A Clinton victory would likely result in lower volatility in the near term relative to a Trump victory. In the immediate aftermath of a Clinton win, there may be some slight risk-on moves from investors but over the medium term much will depend upon the make-up of the United States Congress. Credit markets should prove to be relatively resilient, given that default rates are expected to remain low and the Fed remains cautious in removing policy accommodation, thereby reducing the chances of a policy error. A Trump victory would be seen as a risk-off event in the short-term, resulting in lower treasury yields, a higher US dollar and weaker risk sentiment towards emerging market assets. Given both candidates are advocates of an easier fiscal policy stance, government bond prices are likely to come under pressure in 2017 under both scenarios. Over the longer term, like a Clinton win scenario, the policies that Trump is able to implement given the make-up of Congress will be key to determining the outlook for the economy and consequently bond and currency markets.
