在美國(guó)眾議院議長(zhǎng)南希·佩洛西宣布正式啟動(dòng)對(duì)特朗普的彈劾調(diào)查后，股市似乎未受影響。低開(kāi)之后，標(biāo)普500、道瓊斯30和羅素2000指數(shù)均已恢復(fù)上升態(tài)勢(shì)。

但下個(gè)季度乃至明年的情況會(huì)怎樣呢？如果歷史可以借鑒，那么從投資和財(cái)富管理機(jī)構(gòu)LPL Financial向《財(cái)富》雜志提供的數(shù)據(jù)中就能看出，情況有可能真的變好，也有可能變得糟糕。

尼克松和克林頓的影響不同

理查德·尼克松在彈劾前以辭職換取不被調(diào)查起訴。當(dāng)時(shí)標(biāo)普500指數(shù)的市值下跌了33%。而眾議院彈劾比爾·克林頓，但未獲參議院通過(guò)后，該指數(shù)上漲了39%以上。

LPL Financial的高級(jí)市場(chǎng)策略分析師里安·德特里克在報(bào)告中指出，二者的差別在于當(dāng)時(shí)的經(jīng)濟(jì)情況，“20世紀(jì)70年代中期美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)正在走向嚴(yán)重衰退，90年代末美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)則很強(qiáng)勁。”

如今的情況更為復(fù)雜，經(jīng)濟(jì)仍在增長(zhǎng)，但已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)了各種各樣令人擔(dān)心的跡象。向《財(cái)富》雜志提供報(bào)告的諸多金融專業(yè)人士基本上都認(rèn)為長(zhǎng)期情況有望保持穩(wěn)定。

短期影響

一開(kāi)始可能會(huì)有些波動(dòng)。AXA Investment Managers的宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)研究主管大衛(wèi)·佩吉說(shuō)：“眾議院議長(zhǎng)洛佩西宣布啟動(dòng)彈劾調(diào)查對(duì)金融市場(chǎng)和經(jīng)濟(jì)的初始影響可能都是不利的。”

Wedbush Securities的董事總經(jīng)理史蒂夫·馬索卡認(rèn)為：“彈劾要產(chǎn)生影響，就得有現(xiàn)實(shí)的故事讓投資者相信真的會(huì)出現(xiàn)權(quán)力更迭。我并不是贊成某種政治觀點(diǎn)，只是進(jìn)行投資分析——股市喜歡唐納德·特朗普和他的政策。”如果掌權(quán)者不變，局勢(shì)就很可能一如既往，至少在2020年11月之前將是這樣。

目前彈劾或許幾乎不會(huì)引起投資者注意，特別是在對(duì)華貿(mào)易問(wèn)題懸而未決的情況下。FX Street的一名貨幣分析師亞哈·艾拉姆說(shuō)：“長(zhǎng)期而言，市場(chǎng)[將]傾向于忽略漫長(zhǎng)的彈劾程序，此事在政治上也許備受關(guān)注，但對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)、政策和股市的表現(xiàn)幾乎沒(méi)有什么影響。”艾拉姆還認(rèn)為特朗普下臺(tái)或許對(duì)市場(chǎng)有幫助：“彭斯總統(tǒng)可能會(huì)讓貿(mào)易政策變得更為明確，同時(shí)減少不穩(wěn)定的行為。”

不過(guò)，彈劾特朗普的可能性很小。就像Federated Investors的首席股票策略分析師菲爾·奧蘭多指出的那樣，此事需獲得參議院三分之二的贊成票，但這看來(lái)不大可能，因?yàn)楣埠忘h在參議院占53個(gè)席位，民主黨占45個(gè)，還有兩個(gè)是獨(dú)立席位。這并不是說(shuō)情況馬上就會(huì)變得順利起來(lái)。奧蘭多寫(xiě)道：“中美貿(mào)易爭(zhēng)端的不確定性以及美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)政策最為重要，但世界上其他一系列因素會(huì)在萬(wàn)圣節(jié)時(shí)詭異地匯聚在一起，這包括英國(guó)脫歐的最終期限、日本政府就增值稅做出決定、德拉吉[在歐洲央行]向拉加德交接權(quán)力以及德國(guó)的第三季度GDP初步數(shù)字，它將表明德國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)是否已經(jīng)陷入技術(shù)性衰退。”

不穩(wěn)定性成了“盾牌”

特朗普上任后引發(fā)爭(zhēng)議的時(shí)候非常之多，而這或許是最奇怪的“穩(wěn)定器”。佩吉指出：“這并不是什么新的調(diào)查。這兩年美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)有好幾個(gè)委員會(huì)都在或者曾經(jīng)對(duì)總統(tǒng)進(jìn)行調(diào)查。”

Raymond James Equity Research發(fā)布的報(bào)告認(rèn)為，如果沒(méi)有進(jìn)展，本次彈劾調(diào)查就可能有利于市場(chǎng)，因?yàn)椤八锌赡芙档惋L(fēng)險(xiǎn)”。而且就像國(guó)會(huì)新聞機(jī)構(gòu)Roll Call報(bào)道的那樣，白宮已經(jīng)做出威脅，表示不會(huì)在彈劾調(diào)查中配合國(guó)會(huì)的任何行動(dòng)。

此外，這還可能讓政客們受益。中田納西州立大學(xué)的經(jīng)濟(jì)和金融系副教授丹尼爾·史密斯說(shuō)：“政治不確定性越大，我就會(huì)越發(fā)認(rèn)為高盛等大公司將進(jìn)一步對(duì)沖風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，途徑就是同時(shí)為兩個(gè)黨派的政客提供更多的捐款。”（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Charlie

審校：夏林

With House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement of a formal Trump impeachment inquiry, stock markets don’t seem phased. After an opening drop, the S&P 500, Dow 30, Nasdaq, and Russell 2000 are all in positive territory.

But what about tomorrow, next week, month, and on into the coming year? If history is a tutor, things could go really well—or terribly, according to data compiled and sent to Fortune by LPL Financial.

Nixon and Clinton’s mixed results

After Richard Nixon’s near impeachment, only put off by his resignation, the S&P 500 saw a 33% drop in value. But the index shot up more than 39% after the House impeached Bill Clinton and the Senate failed to remove him.

The difference, according to a note from LPL Financial senior market strategist Ryan Detrick, is where the economy already was: “The economy was headed into a vicious recession in the mid-’70s, while the economy was humming along in the late 1990s.”

Things are more mixed these days, with growth still happening but various worrying signs visible. A number of financial professionals who sent notes to Fortune largely thought things would be stable in the long run.

Short-term impact

At first there may be some disturbance. “The primary initial impact of House Speaker Pelosi’s announcement is likely to be negative for both financial markets and the economy alike,” says David Page, head of macroeconomic research at AXA Investment Managers.

“For impeachment to matter, there would have to be a realistic story that would lead investors to believe that there would be an actual change in power,” says Steve Massocca, managing director at Wedbush Securities. “I am not espousing a political viewpoint but rather an investment analysis. The stock market likes Donald Trump and his agenda.” Absent a change in power, things will probably move along as they have been, at least until November 2020.

It may be that, especially with issues of trade with China still looming large, there is currently little of interest for investors in the process. “In the long run, markets [will] tend to shrug off the lengthy impeachment processes, which may be politically fascinating, but have little impact on the economy, policy, and stock market performance,” says Yohay Elam, a currency analyst at FX Street, who also thinks that a removal from office might actually help markets. “[A] President Pence may provide more certainty around trade policy and less erratic behavior.”

Removal, however, is a remote possibility, as Phil Orlando, chief equity strategist at Federated Investors, notes, given that the Senate would need a two-thirds majority to take that action, which seems unlikely with 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 Independents. That doesn’t mean smooth sailing immediately ahead. “Uncertainty around U.S.-China trade tensions and Federal Reserve policy top the list, but a number of other factors around the world will come together spookily enough right at Halloween: the Brexit deadline; the Japanese VAT tax decision; the Draghi transition to Lagarde at the [European Central Bank]; and Germany’s Q3 GDP flash report indicating whether their economy has slipped into a technical recession,” Orlando writes.

Instability becomes a shield

What may be the oddest stabilizing factor is that so much of Trump’s time in the White House has been controversial. “This does not mark a new sort of enquiry and there are, and have been, several Committees investigating the President over recent years,” Page says.

And any lack of progress—as the White House has threatened to refuse to cooperate in any legislative process during an impeachment inquiry, as Roll Call reported—could be a plus for markets as it “could serve to mitigate risk,” according to a published note from Raymond James Equity Research.

Plus, it could be a boon for politicians. “The more political uncertainty there is, the more I would expect major corporations, such as Goldman Sachs, to further hedge their bets by donating to politicians on both sides of the aisle,” says Daniel Smith, associate professor in the Department of Economics and Finance at Middle Tennessee State University.