Some have suggested that markets, riding a “Trump bump”, could be highly volatile in response to an impeachment of Mr. Trump. The argument goes that Trump has had a positive impact on markets given his pro-business policies. When news broke that former Trump advisor Michael Flynn had reached a plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the odds of a Trump impeachment spiked to over 40% on the political betting site PredictIt.org. Markets sharply recoiled with the Dow immediately falling over 300 points.
Yet despite this bombshell announcement, financial markets recovered by the end of the day. The next trading day the Dow posted a record high. If markets hate uncertainty, how is it that markets could so quickly shrug off the growing possibility of impeachment? The obvious answer is that the prospect of a Trump impeachment must not introduce more uncertainty into markets. There are at least five reasons why this is the case.
First, removing a sitting president from office is, by design, an exceptionally difficult thing to do. Markets know this. The odds of a Trump impeachment stand at only 2% by end of 2017, 20% by end of 2018, and 37% by 2020. Betting markets put the odds of a Trump removal at 4% by the end of 2017, 34% by the end of 2018, and 45% by the end of 2019. Why the difference? Impeachment doesn’t remove the president from office. Impeachment means the president has been indicted. If a majority of the House votes to impeach the president, the process moves to the Senate. Only upon a two-thirds majority vote can the Senate remove a sitting president from office.
Second, there is no historical evidence that markets would decline in response to impeachment. Our only real historical precedent would be the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998. From when the House voted to start impeachment proceedings on October 8, 1998 to the Senate’s acquittal on February 12, 1999, the S&P 500 Index rose 28%.
Critics counter that the market fell nearly 20% in anticipation of Clinton’s impeachment. However, to suggest the market sell-off of mid-1998 was solely in anticipation of impeachment is a weak argument. There were other disruptive events at the time that more likely explain the market’s decline, such as Russia’s devaluation of the ruble in August (and subsequent debt default) and the collapse of hedge fund giant LTCM. Nevertheless, even if the mid-1998 sell-off was solely in anticipation of Clinton’s impeachment, markets fully recovered by late November 1998—just as the House was preparing to impeach Mr. Clinton. Despite the volatility, the S&P 500 returned 28.58% in 1998.
But what about the resignation of President Nixon? Markets fell 42% from January 1973 – August 1974, a period that includes the conviction of the Watergate burglars and Nixon’s resignation. But during this time oil prices quadrupled and inflation spiked to 12.2%. To argue that Nixon’s resignation alone caused a 42% decline in equities is to ignore other market-moving events at the time. Subsequently, the historical evidence is inconclusive.
Third, there is little evidence the current bull market has been Trump-inspired. This market has been driven by corporate earnings growth, a slow but steady economic expansion, and falling unemployment. These macro trends didn’t begin with the election of Mr. Trump. One could easily argue that the current rally is really an extension of the bull market that began long before Trump’s election.
Proponents of the “Trump bump” argument counter that the market rose 3% in the two weeks following the election. But to argue that the election of President Trump was the reason for those gains is specious. How do we know the market’s rise after the election wasn’t a relief rally, thankful that the election had finally passed and Mrs. Clinton had conceded? After all, the peaceful transition of power is a risk-reducing hallmark of any democracy. Anything that reduces risk would push markets higher. Further, to argue the market rise in the immediate aftermath of the election was solely attributable to Mr. Trump is to ignore the fact that the Republican party had won the election and now had single party control of government. Separating the market impact of Mr. Trump’s election win from that of the Republican party’s is a difficult exercise.
Fourth, the only tangible Trump economic policy propelling markets is the prospect for corporate tax reform. But the odds of tax reform becoming law are already high, with betting markets setting the odds of passage before March 31, 2018 at 90%. Subsequently, it is unlikely that Mr. Trump would be impeached or removed from office prior to the passage. Thus, with tax reform already a virtual certainty, is there really anything markets would miss if President Trump were removed from office?
Finally, if President Trump were in fact to be removed from office he would be replaced by Vice President Pence. Is there anything markets would miss in Mr. Trump’s absence that a President Pence wouldn’t deliver? Subsequently, the real question centers around how markets view a prospective Pence White House relative to the current Trump White House. An establishment Republican, Pence would likely run a business friendly, less dramatic, and more predictable White House. And if the axiom that “markets hate uncertainty” is true to any extent, a more certain and predictable White House should have a positive impact on markets.
This publication should not be construed by any consumer and/or prospective client as Mercer Advisors’ solicitation to effect, or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or the rendering of personalized investment advice for compensation. Furthermore, information in this publication should not be construed, in any manner whatsoever, as the receipt of, or a substitute for, personalized individual advice from Mercer Advisors. Any subsequent, direct communication by Mercer Advisors with a prospective client shall be conducted by a representative that is either registered or qualifies for an exemption or exclusion from registration in the state where the prospective client resides.
Historical performance results for investment indexes and/or categories generally do not reflect the deduction of transaction and/or custodial charges or the deduction of an investment-management fee, the incurrence of which would have the effect of decreasing historical performance results. This document may contain forward looking statements including statements regarding our intent, belief or current expectations with respect to market conditions. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward looking statements. While due care has been used in the preparation of forecast information, actual results may vary in a materially positive or negative manner. Forecasts and hypothetical examples are subject to uncertainty and contingencies outside Mercer Advisors’ control.
Mercer Global Advisors Inc. is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and delivers all investment-related services. Mercer Advisors Inc. is the parent company of Mercer Global Advisors Inc. and is not involved with investment services.
2Data from FactSet
Jun 8, 2018
Jun 8, 2018
Jun 28, 2018
Aug 24, 2018
Aug 24, 2018
You are leaving the Mercer Global Advisors website and will be redirected to the Science of Economic Freedom (SOEF) website. SOEF is brought to you by Mercer Advisors Inc., the parent company of Mercer Global Advisors Inc., and is not involved with investment services. Mercer Global Advisors Inc. is an SEC-registered investment adviser headquartered in Denver, CO.
The Science of Economic Freedom website should not be construed by any consumer and/or prospective client as Mercer Advisors’ solicitation to effect, or attempt to effect, transactions in securities, or the rendering of personalized investment advice for compensation, over the Internet. Furthermore, information on the SOEF website should not be construed, in any manner whatsoever, as the receipt of, or a substitute for, personalized individual advice from Mercer Advisors.