By James Neals, CFA®
Vice President & Portfolio Manager, Optimize Financial Group
“Vote for me and all your wildest dreams will come true.” — Napoleon Dynamite
Trump’s promise at the RNC last week to dole out $5,000 to all adults if Republicans win both the House and Senate. Elections are ultimately an exercise in promises, but this one increasingly looks like it will be decided by whether voters believe the promises already made have translated into improvements they can actually feel. The House looks increasingly likely to flip, while the Senate remains much tighter. That would leave us with the familiar Washington outcome: plenty of ambitious policy proposals, but a much narrower path to actually getting them done. What stands out to me is how economically grounded voter concerns have become. Affordability remains central, and energy prices are becoming an increasingly important political variable. Democratic Senate odds and gasoline prices have shown nearly a 75% correlation this year.
Markets may debate fiscal impulse, real yields, and forward inflation expectations. Voters have a simpler dashboard: the price at the pump and what is left in the bank account at the end of the month. Having once been a bank teller in my youth, I can confirm that household economics have always been remarkably popular. Nobody ever walked up to my window and asked about the neutral rate. The promises going into November are therefore likely to remain focused on household economics. The important distinction from a market perspective is between campaign agenda and executable policy. With that in mind, I am also watching where political backlash is appearing outside the traditional election issues. AI is a good example. The investment case remains powerful, but the physical buildout is colliding with local concerns around electricity prices, grid reliability, water consumption, land use, and public subsidies. Data centres may live in “the cloud,” but unfortunately their electricity bills do not. That is increasingly translating into permitting fights, moratoriums and greater scrutiny over who ultimately bears the infrastructure costs. The AI trade may be about artificial intelligence, but the political reaction is looking increasingly human: “Wait, why is my electricity bill going up?”
From an investment perspective, my base case is therefore less about a dramatic policy reset and more about gridlock, reduced fiscal optionality, greater sector-level policy dispersion, and, unfortunately for Canada, probably not much trade support unless the Democrats can win a ⅔ majority in both houses of government. Historically, though, that has not been a bad setup for risk assets. Equities have averaged over a 13% gain in the first year of divided government, while 10-year yields declined close to 80 basis points. As a portfolio manager, I naturally prefer complicated explanations involving real yields, fiscal impulse, and term premia. But sometimes the market’s most useful political forecast is considerably simpler: fewer things getting done. Pedro may have promised that all our wildest dreams would come true. Washington may deliver something considerably less exciting, but potentially much more useful for markets: gridlock. After all, I’ve spent enough time in markets to know that when someone promises to make all your dreams come true, the first thing you should probably check is what they’re doing with your wallet.
- Despite recent market volatility, an encouraging trend is developing beneath the surface: market leadership is broadening. While technology and semiconductor stocks have experienced some volatility, demand for AI infrastructure remains strong, and opportunities are increasingly extending beyond the largest technology companies.
- Recent market moves have also reflected rotation between sectors rather than a broad deterioration in corporate fundamentals. Earnings remain supportive, suggesting recent volatility may be more about investors repositioning across different areas of the market than a weakening outlook for equities overall.
- What we’re watching: Whether market participation continues to broaden beyond mega-cap technology, and whether solid corporate earnings can offset the pressure from higher bond yields.
- Why it matters: A market supported by a wider range of companies and sectors can be healthier and more durable than one dependent on a small group of stocks.
Disclaimer: This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Please consult with your financial advisor before making any investment decisions.