猜測結束了。
在喬·拜登宣布任命賀錦麗(Kamala Harris)為其副總統競選伙伴后,投資者對2020年民主黨大選候選人搭檔有了清晰的認識。富國銀行投資研究所(Wells Fargo Investment Institute)的資深全球市場策略師薩米爾·薩馬納認為,這有助于消除一些尾部風險。
“如果[拜登]選了伊麗莎白·沃倫,那會被視為利空,因為外界認為沃倫持著大為強硬的‘反金融’立場 [并且]更傾向于嚴監管。”薩馬納對《財富》雜志表示,“賀錦麗被挑中可能意味著略微消除一些尾部風險,因為‘現在我們知道是賀錦麗,而不是民主黨進步派的核心人物,這方面的尾部風險有所消除。’”
瑞銀全球財富管理的美洲固定收益業務負責人托馬斯·麥克洛克林在8月11日發布的一份研究報告中寫道,雖然賀錦麗被挑選為拜登的競選伙伴確實意味著民主黨候選人格局已經不可能大大偏向進步派,但總的來說,“副總統競選人選很少會對金融市場產生重大影響。”他寫道:“我們預計美國股市及固定收益市場不會對這一選擇產生突然的反應,因為這一可能性在幾周來已經被市場充分消化。”
但這并不意味著投資者不會考慮拜登—賀錦麗政府的潛在格局,以及哪些行業會對這對競選搭檔的擬議政策最為敏感。
幾個月來,分析師們一直在分析假設拜登當選會對股市產生何等影響。例如,摩根大通認為他當選可能對股市有利。但對華爾街(以及廣大美國企業)而言,最令人關切的是拜登上調公司稅率的決心。
但摩根大通的分析師們在7月的一份報告中寫道,“消息面風吹草動的風險可能大于實際政策風險。”薩馬納承認,考慮到“美國經濟總體仍然處于低迷狀態”,大幅加稅不太可能(至少在短期內不可能)。
不過,實際上可能受到拜登—賀錦麗當選影響的一些行業包括制藥業。薩馬納認為,目前而言,全民醫療保險幾乎已經不可能推進了,但特朗普總統下調藥品價格之戰很可能由拜登總統繼續推進,這對于大型制藥公司可能意味著不利因素。
與此同時,盡管科技業近來是個富有爭議的熱點問題,人們不斷呼吁在隱私保護和法規方面對科技業開展更多強監管,但拜登選擇賀錦麗實際上有可能對大型科技公司有利。正如《財富》雜志的駱杰峰最近報道的那樣,賀錦麗與硅谷頗有淵源,并且呼吁拆分科技巨頭的聲音是雷聲大雨點小,“與拜登的其他選擇以及特朗普政府(特朗普政府對硅谷展開了無情的攻擊)相比,選擇賀錦麗對科技行業而言簡直是好得不能再好了。”羅伯茨寫道。
薩馬納也指出,拜登—賀錦麗當選將意味著“鐘擺向進步派稍稍傾斜”,并且能源以及對環保問題敏感的行業很可能成為輸家。“如果你是一家傳統的能源公司,形勢很可能只會變得更艱難。但若你更偏向于太陽能、風能或電動汽車,那么新政府政策可能會向你傾斜。”他指出。
的確,摩根大通的分析師們在7月寫道,在民主黨執政期間,特斯拉公司、Nikola和FirstSolar等個股有望跑贏大盤,而阿帕奇公司(Apache)和先鋒自然資源公司(Pioneer Natural Resources)等油氣生產商類股表現可能會跑輸。
與此同時,薩馬納認為,將最低工資提高到每小時15美元(很早就在拜登競選綱領上的一項政策提議)在華爾街看來可能是不利的,因為這可能意味著“對企業盈利能力的打擊”并且“可能會嚇壞金融市場參與者。”摩根大通的分析師們寫道,提高最低工資對于標準普爾500指數里的公司,尤其是醫療和科技公司,可能意味著“中性到積極的”影響,但它“可能在能夠吸收較高工資的公司與那些定價能力及規模較低的公司之間造成額外壓力”,梅西百貨、萬豪國際酒店集團和克羅格公司等個股可能會表現落后。但另一方面,薩馬納指出,最低工資上調的影響也可能被消費者信心和消費增長所抵消。
盡管競選承諾和政策實際落地(以及它們將如何影響投資者)仍需拭目以待,但包括薩馬納在內的策略師指出,競選搭檔的最終敲定“進一步使人們認識到,拜登總統將向特朗普擔任總統之前存在的政治范式回歸。”薩馬納稱,“選擇賀錦麗進一步強化了這種觀點。”(財富中文網)
譯者:Charlie
猜測結束了。
在喬·拜登宣布任命賀錦麗(Kamala Harris)為其副總統競選伙伴后,投資者對2020年民主黨大選候選人搭檔有了清晰的認識。富國銀行投資研究所(Wells Fargo Investment Institute)的資深全球市場策略師薩米爾·薩馬納認為,這有助于消除一些尾部風險。
“如果[拜登]選了伊麗莎白·沃倫,那會被視為利空,因為外界認為沃倫持著大為強硬的‘反金融’立場 [并且]更傾向于嚴監管。”薩馬納對《財富》雜志表示,“賀錦麗被挑中可能意味著略微消除一些尾部風險,因為‘現在我們知道是賀錦麗,而不是民主黨進步派的核心人物,這方面的尾部風險有所消除。’”
瑞銀全球財富管理的美洲固定收益業務負責人托馬斯·麥克洛克林在8月11日發布的一份研究報告中寫道,雖然賀錦麗被挑選為拜登的競選伙伴確實意味著民主黨候選人格局已經不可能大大偏向進步派,但總的來說,“副總統競選人選很少會對金融市場產生重大影響。”他寫道:“我們預計美國股市及固定收益市場不會對這一選擇產生突然的反應,因為這一可能性在幾周來已經被市場充分消化。”
但這并不意味著投資者不會考慮拜登—賀錦麗政府的潛在格局,以及哪些行業會對這對競選搭檔的擬議政策最為敏感。
幾個月來,分析師們一直在分析假設拜登當選會對股市產生何等影響。例如,摩根大通認為他當選可能對股市有利。但對華爾街(以及廣大美國企業)而言,最令人關切的是拜登上調公司稅率的決心。
但摩根大通的分析師們在7月的一份報告中寫道,“消息面風吹草動的風險可能大于實際政策風險。”薩馬納承認,考慮到“美國經濟總體仍然處于低迷狀態”,大幅加稅不太可能(至少在短期內不可能)。
不過,實際上可能受到拜登—賀錦麗當選影響的一些行業包括制藥業。薩馬納認為,目前而言,全民醫療保險幾乎已經不可能推進了,但特朗普總統下調藥品價格之戰很可能由拜登總統繼續推進,這對于大型制藥公司可能意味著不利因素。
與此同時,盡管科技業近來是個富有爭議的熱點問題,人們不斷呼吁在隱私保護和法規方面對科技業開展更多強監管,但拜登選擇賀錦麗實際上有可能對大型科技公司有利。正如《財富》雜志的駱杰峰最近報道的那樣,賀錦麗與硅谷頗有淵源,并且呼吁拆分科技巨頭的聲音是雷聲大雨點小,“與拜登的其他選擇以及特朗普政府(特朗普政府對硅谷展開了無情的攻擊)相比,選擇賀錦麗對科技行業而言簡直是好得不能再好了。”羅伯茨寫道。
薩馬納也指出,拜登—賀錦麗當選將意味著“鐘擺向進步派稍稍傾斜”,并且能源以及對環保問題敏感的行業很可能成為輸家。“如果你是一家傳統的能源公司,形勢很可能只會變得更艱難。但若你更偏向于太陽能、風能或電動汽車,那么新政府政策可能會向你傾斜。”他指出。
的確,摩根大通的分析師們在7月寫道,在民主黨執政期間,特斯拉公司、Nikola和FirstSolar等個股有望跑贏大盤,而阿帕奇公司(Apache)和先鋒自然資源公司(Pioneer Natural Resources)等油氣生產商類股表現可能會跑輸。
與此同時,薩馬納認為,將最低工資提高到每小時15美元(很早就在拜登競選綱領上的一項政策提議)在華爾街看來可能是不利的,因為這可能意味著“對企業盈利能力的打擊”并且“可能會嚇壞金融市場參與者。”摩根大通的分析師們寫道,提高最低工資對于標準普爾500指數里的公司,尤其是醫療和科技公司,可能意味著“中性到積極的”影響,但它“可能在能夠吸收較高工資的公司與那些定價能力及規模較低的公司之間造成額外壓力”,梅西百貨、萬豪國際酒店集團和克羅格公司等個股可能會表現落后。但另一方面,薩馬納指出,最低工資上調的影響也可能被消費者信心和消費增長所抵消。
盡管競選承諾和政策實際落地(以及它們將如何影響投資者)仍需拭目以待,但包括薩馬納在內的策略師指出,競選搭檔的最終敲定“進一步使人們認識到,拜登總統將向特朗普擔任總統之前存在的政治范式回歸。”薩馬納稱,“選擇賀錦麗進一步強化了這種觀點。”(財富中文網)
譯者:Charlie
The speculation is over.
With Joe Biden's announcement of his vice president pick, Kamala Harris, investors now have a clear picture of the Democratic ticket for 2020. And according to Wells Fargo Investment Institute’s senior global market strategist Sameer Samana, that's helped take a little tail risk off the table.
"If [Biden] had gone with, let’s say, an Elizabeth Warren, who would have been viewed as much more, call it, 'anti-financials' [and] a little bit more on the regulatory front, that would have been seen as a negative," he tells Fortune. “What the Harris pick does is it maybe trims the tail just a little bit in terms of, ‘Now that we know it’s Harris, and we know it’s not someone who was anchoring the progressive wing of the party, some of that tail risk has been removed.’”
While Harris’s appointment as running mate does put to bed the possibility of a far more progressive ticket, in general, "vice presidential candidates rarely have a significant impact on financial markets," UBS Global Wealth Management's head of Americas fixed income Thomas McLoughlin wrote in a note Tuesday. "We do not expect the U.S. equity or fixed-income markets to react abruptly to the selection because the choice was adequately telegraphed as a real possibility for weeks," he writes.
But that doesn't mean investors aren't pondering what a Biden-Harris administration might look like—and which industries might be most sensitive to the duo's proposed policies.
For months analysts have been positing what Biden may mean for stocks (JPMorgan, for one, suggested he could be a positive for markets). But perhaps the headline concern for those on Wall Street (and corporate America) is Biden's resolve to raise corporate taxes.
Yet analysts at JPMorgan wrote in July that the "headline risk might be greater than actual policy," and Samana concedes a massive tax hike is unlikely to happen (at least anytime soon) "while there’s still an overall sluggishness to the economy."
Some industries that might actually be impacted by a Biden-Harris ticket, though, include pharmaceuticals. At this point, Medicare for All is pretty much off the table, but President Trump's fight to lower drug prices will likely be carried on by a President Biden, Samana suggests, meaning potential headwinds for Big Pharma.
Meanwhile, although tech has been a hot-button industry as of late, with continued calls for more crackdowns on privacy and regulation, Biden's choice in Harris might actually be good for Big Tech. As Fortune's Jeff Roberts recently reported, with Harris’s ties to Silicon Valley and seemingly toothless calls to break up tech, "Harris is infinitely preferable to the tech industry than Biden's other choices, as well as the Trump administration, which has attacked Silicon Valley relentlessly," Roberts writes.
Samana also notes a Biden-Harris presidency would mean "a pendulum swing back a little bit more toward the progressive side" and points out energy and environment-sensitive industries would likely be in the crosshairs. "If you’re an old-school energy company, things are probably only going to get harder for you. If you’re more oriented toward solar, wind, or electric vehicles, then you could see how government policies kind of tilt in your favor," he notes.
Indeed, analysts at JPMorgan wrote in July that stocks like Tesla, Nikola, and FirstSolar are poised to be outperformers during a Democratic reign, while oil and gas producers like Apache and Pioneer Natural Resources may underperform.
Meanwhile, raising minimum wage to $15 per hour (an item long on Biden's platform) could be a negative in the eyes of Wall Street, Samana suggests, as it could mean a "hit [to] corporate profitability" that "would possibly spook financial markets." And while analysts at JPMorgan wrote a higher minimum wage might be a "neutral to positive" for S&P 500 companies, especially health care and tech, it "could create additional stress between companies that are able to absorb higher wages vs. those with lower pricing power/scale," with stocks like Macy's, Marriott International, and Kroger likely to lag. But on the flip side, Samana points out a hike in wages could also "be offset by greater consumer confidence and consumption."
While it remains to be seen how campaign promises and policies actually shake out (and how they might impact investors), strategists like Samana note the finalized ticket "continues the understanding that a President Biden would be kind of a return to the political norms that existed prior to a Trump presidency," he suggests. "The Harris pick further cements that."