The U.S. presidential election is fast approaching, but it may not have as much an impact on markets as people may think, some investors say. With just a little over two weeks until the election, the race appears to be locked in a “dead heat” between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, according to the latest national NBC News poll. Trump has recently seen a comeback in the polls, in addition to some recent signs equity markets are pricing in his victory , and possibly even a Republican sweep. Meanwhile, Harris’ popularity has waned somewhat from its heights over the summertime. But many investors are optimistic the bull case for stocks will hold regardless of the election outcome, especially given the major averages’ recent performance. While the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 were lower Monday, they were each coming off a six-week winning streak, the best such advance of the year for both benchmarks. The S & P 500 is up about 22% for the year. History suggests the strong performance bodes well for a post-election pop into year’s end. In data going back to 1944, a prematurely strong performance in election years typically meant a “further improvement” in November and December, according to Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA Research. “History therefore implies, but does not guarantee, that active managers may put the pedal to the metal in an effort to match or exceed their benchmarks return in the final months of this unusually strong election year,” Stovall said. The strategist noted that an investor “hunger for growth” bodes especially well for communication services, financials and information technology, and less well for consumer staples, materials and energy. Scenarios Part of the reason why investors expect the election will have little impact on equities has to do with what a poor predictor candidates’ policies have been to performance in the past. When Trump was elected in the 2016 presidential election, investors expected energy would perform well — but the subsequent two years proved unfavorable for the sector. Meanwhile, renewable energy, a centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign, underperformed the first two years into Biden’s presidency. “I think the lesson from that is that investors shouldn’t pay too much attention to politics, and they should really be focused on how industries and companies are changing and where there’s integration,” said Alger CEO Dan Chung. Other market observers echoed similar sentiments. Last week, John Stoltzfus, chief investment strategist at Oppenheimer Asset Management, urged investors “to not read too much into the probability of the election going one way or the other for the Presidency or House or Senate.” Of course, investors weighing the possible election outcomes expect that a Harris victory, with a split Congress, could be a bullish development for equities. A House of Representatives in control of Democrats, with a Senate that is held by Republicans, is unlikely to pass through any bills, particularly when it comes to increases in personal or business taxes. Meanwhile, a scenario in which Trump wins may be welcomed by markets, which have been pricing in a Trump win, but will raise questions around how seriously the former president is in erecting tariffs that can hinder global trade. Risks of delayed results To be sure, one potential concern for investors could depend on how hotly contested the outcome may be, with the possibility of delayed results leading to higher volatility. “We emphasize the likelihood for a delayed election result,” Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Monica Guerra wrote this month. “A tight race, as well as mail-in voting and ballot counting fragmentation, raises the possibility of an undetermined election for some time, which may drive heightened volatility/” An election delay could last anywhere from days to weeks, Guerra wrote. After the 2020 election, the firm noted, the Cboe Volatility Index spiked 40% for three days until a winner was decided upon. During the 2000 election, volatility lasted for more than 30 days, through December. “We encourage investors to keep their long-term objectives in mind during periods of uncertainty and position for election related volatility,” Guerra wrote. Still, plenty of investors aren’t waiting for any clarity on the election to start positioning for a bullish end to the year. “I wouldn’t be waiting on the sidelines for clarity on the election or anything else,” said Ross Mayfield, investment strategist at Baird. “I would be leaning into the uncertainty and kind of levering up towards more risk-on types of sectors and assets.”
Check out the companies making headlines in midday trading: American Airlines — Shares slipped less than 1%, recovering from earlier losses, after the airline temporarily grounded all of its flights due to a technical issue. Broadcom — The semi stock added 2%, extending its December rally. Shares have surged more than 46% this month, propelling its 2024 gain above 112%. Big banks — Shares of some big bank stocks rose more than 1% amid news that a group of banks and business groups are suing the Federal Reserve over the annual stress tests, saying it “produces vacillating and unexplained requirements and restrictions on bank capital.” Citigroup , JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs shares gained more than 1% each. Arcadium Lithium — Shares rose more than 4% after the company announced its shareholders have approved the $6.7 billion sale to Rio Tinto . The deal is expected to close in mid-2025. International Seaways — The energy transportation provider surged 8% after an announcement that the company would be added to the S & P SmallCap 600 index, effective Dec. 30. The company will replace Consolidated Communications , which is soon to be acquired. Crypto stocks — Shares of stocks tied to the price of bitcoin rose as the cryptocurrency gave back recent losses amid a climb in tech names broadly. Crypto services provider Coinbase gained almost 3% and bitcoin proxy MicroStrategy gained more than 5%. Miners Riot Platforms and IREN gained 6% and 4%, respectively. U.S. Steel — The steel producer’s stock hovered near the flatline amid news that President Joe Biden will decide on the fate of its proposed acquisition by Japan’s Nippon Steel after a government panel failed to reach a decision . Apple — Apple shares gained 0.9% to notch a new all-time high. The stock has rallied nearly 34% year to date. — CNBC’s Sean Conlon, Lisa Han, Tanaya Macheel and Alex Harring contributed reporting.
A general view of the Federal Reserve Building in Washington, United States.
Samuel Corum | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images
The biggest banks are planning to sue the Federal Reserve over the annual bank stress tests, according to a person familiar with the matter. A lawsuit is expected this week and could come as soon as Tuesday morning, the person said.
The Fed’s stress test is an annual ritual that forces banks to maintain adequate cushions for bad loans and dictates the size of share repurchases and dividends.
After the market close on Monday, the Federal Reserve announced in a statement that it is looking to make changes to the bank stress tests and will be seeking public comment on what it calls “significant changes to improve the transparency of its bank stress tests and to reduce the volatility of resulting capital buffer requirements.”
The Fed said it made the determination to change the tests because of “the evolving legal landscape,” pointing to changes in administrative laws in recent years. It didn’t outline any specific changes to the framework of the annual stress tests.
While the big banks will likely view the changes as a win, it may be too little too late.
Also, the changes may not go far enough to satisfy the banks’ concerns about onerous capital requirements. “These proposed changes are not designed to materially affect overall capital requirements, according to the Fed.
The CEO of BPI (Bank Policy Institute), Greg Baer, which represents big banks like JPMorgan, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, welcomed the Fed announcement, saying in a statement “The Board’s announcement today is a first step towards transparency and accountability.”
However, Baer also hinted at further action: “We are reviewing it closely and considering additional options to ensure timely reforms that are both good law and good policy.”
Groups like the BPI and the American Bankers Association have raised concerns about the stress test process in the past, claiming that it is opaque, and has resulted in higher capital rules that hurt bank lending and economic growth.
In July, the groups accused the Fed of being in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, because it didn’t seek public comment on its stress scenarios and kept supervisory models secret.