Skip to main content

Many investors are mindful that they failed to predict the shock victory of Donald Trump in 2016. (Photos by JIM WATSON and SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by JIM WATSON,SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

As the days count down to a U.S. presidential election that could alter the course of global markets, some investors have crafted an odd-sounding strategy for navigating the outcome: they plan to do nothing.

Polls point to a clear win for the Democratic Party on Nov. 3, potentially on a scale large enough to take the presidency and both houses of Congress – a result that could ring changes in sectors such as energy and health care and set the direction of wider stock and bond markets.

But many investors are mindful that they failed to predict the shock victory of Donald Trump in 2016 – which triggered market convulsions on the night – as well as the longer-term equities rally that was stoked by his administration’s corporate tax cuts. Other surprises, such as the rise and then historic drop in the sterling pound on the Brexit referendum night earlier that year, have left some investors preferring to just sit back and wait for the result.

Story continues below advertisement

“We’re an asset manager. We’re not bandits or gamblers,” says Vincent Mortier, deputy chief investment officer at Amundi SA in Paris. “We don’t want to make a short-term trade that’s very speculative. That may sound like it’s not very courageous, but not making a decision is also making a decision.”

Rather than picking a winner and guessing the impact, Mr. Mortier intends to stay neutral. He is telling portfolio managers to be ready for a range of outcomes, from a contested result to a Democratic clean sweep – and to decide at what price certain assets would appear cheap in a sell-off. “Our objective is not to have drama,” he says.

This approach is not confined to large asset managers; some short-term investors are also unusually wary.

“Most hedge fund managers are not trying to make investments based on a binary event like the U.S. election,” says Karim Leguel, European head of hedge fund solutions at J.P. Morgan Asset Management in London, adding that fund managers were instead looking for trades likely to do well regardless of the result.

Some managers say they are selected to offer low volatility in returns. As a result, they do not want to have to explain to clients or bosses how they made big losses, or even big profits, as a result of an election punt.

“We’re not really trading the election. We’ve not really got a lot of risk on either way,” says Tom Clarke, who runs a macro fund at William Blair and Co. in London.

Macro fund managers, who trade bonds, currencies and stocks globally, have diversified their portfolios as a way of reducing risk in the run-up to the vote, according to Nathanael Benzaken, chief client officer at Lyxor Asset Management in Paris.

Story continues below advertisement

Equity managers, meanwhile, have cut the size of their overall bets and pulled back on wagers on stocks rising, he says. “It’s extremely difficult to manage a strategy on a binary outcome.”

Fiona Frick, chief executive of Switzerland-based investment firm Unigestion SA, says her firm had been balancing risks by buying put options – the right to sell at a pre-determined price – but also buying futures on underlying assets, which would make money if markets moved higher.

Even conducting private polling as a way of gaining an edge in an election – a strategy some hedge funds used for the Brexit vote – is fraught with danger. One senior hedge fund executive says they were unlikely to use such polling again after it backfired during another election. “It felt like we had an inside edge, which gave us some comfort, and we were completely wrong [about the result].”

Sentiment among investors over the U.S. election has switched markedly of late. Typically, Democratic victories are perceived as a path to higher taxes that dent corporate profits and drag equities lower.

That preconception sticks despite even recent historical examples: the benchmark S&P 500 of U.S. stocks more than doubled from the time Democrat Barack Obama was elected in 2008 to Mr. Trump’s victory eight years later.

In 2020, though, a Democratic victory is not the bulls’ most problematic result. Instead, a contested outcome with Mr. Trump refusing to accept a loss and clinging to power is thought to be much more disruptive. A Democratic win bringing higher levels of fiscal spending may instead be the most favourable outcome for stocks, analysts have said.

Story continues below advertisement

Even in the event of a sell-off, investors say reliable hedges are harder to find. Typically, U.S. government bonds, the global haven asset, perform well in periods of stress. But yields on such debt are already minuscule since the U.S. Federal Reserve Board cut benchmark interest rates to near-zero in the depths of the coronavirus shock in March, giving the bonds little room to rally further in price. Equity put options, which profit from a drop in stock markets, are already expensive.

“A few years ago, I’d have told you it’s easy,” Mr. Mortier says. “Now I’m a bit skeptical about putting on aggressive hedges, even though we have a feeling that something will happen.”

© The Financial Times Limited 2020. All Rights Reserved. FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd. Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Comments are closed

We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons or for abuse. For more information on our commenting policies and how our community-based moderation works, please read our Community Guidelines and our Terms and Conditions.

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies