Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. The election is only about a week away, and while most major polls, including the latest Bloomberg Morning Console poll, show Vice President Harris and former President Trump are running neck and neck, Wall Street has become increasingly convinced Trump is going to win, and that conviction is manifesting itself in what's come to be called the Trump.
Trade, the Trump trade, as some have been calling it, the so called Trump trade.
We see those games from the Trump trades, who are the winners and who are the loser? Investors are effectively betting on a Trump win in the stock market, in the bond market, in currencies, in crypto Bloomberg Opinions, John Author says he's never seen anything like it. Wall Street paying such close attention to a presidential election. He compared to what's happening now to his first election he covered in the US, that was Dole versus Clinton in nineteen ninety seven.
I actually spoke to somebody in one of the large firms two days later who said, did Clinton win? And wasn't embarrassing? Yes he did? I mean that there was You couldn't tell anything about that election from prices before it happened or after. This is so different from.
That, it's hard to overstate John says how much things have changed since then.
It's a very interesting, difficult, flammable situation. The level of interest is unusual, and it's pretty extreme.
I'm David Gura, and this is the big take from Bloomberg News today on the show, The Trump Trade and what it tells us about how Wall Street sees this election and the future of the economy. What is the Trump trade? What exactly is Wall Street betting on? Okay, Trump trade?
Very broadly, it's positive, bullish on stocks and negative bearish on bonds. At present, it seems to be predicated on the belief that even though a Trump presidency will be negative for bonds, it won't be so negative. It won't push up yields so much that it derails the stock market. So that's basically the Trump trade, a belief that Trump is going to win and that what he does will be expansionary and that it's also going to boost growth and help the stock market.
Could I ask you how people are playing this in a few different outset classes as you mentioned Starks, Yes, I would guess that there would be people who think oh, this is going to be good for energy stocks, for instance, or financials. Perhaps there'll be less regulation.
Yeah, companies that are deemed to be very benefited by logistics by globalization have a problem. If you were interested in FedEx, for example, that's plainly doesn't do well when Trump's numbers are seen to improve. But yes, overall a Trump win is seen to be good for classic cyclical companies and it's not so great for classic defensive, staple type companies.
How about in the bar market.
Bond market generally there are two animating features here. One is it's a cliche, but it is true that bond markets prefer gridlock. When you have gridlock when one party in Congress actors a check on the presidency, generally speaking, the deficity is less likely to get out of control, Supply is less likely to be too heavy, and so
that keeps yields lower. The assumption, which I think is probably correct, is that if Trump pulls off the presidency, the chances of overwhelmingly strong that he wins the Senate as well, and probably also holds onto the House. So if you have unified government, that's bad for bonds.
John says fixed income investors like Most are not typically motivated by ideology. They just want to make money, and some are trying to bet on what a Trump presidency might mean for inflation in both the short term and the long term.
It will absolutely, undoubtedly be terrible for inflation in the short term. The total burden on the amount of tariff that will be paid. This is Barclay's research. I'm going from not anything to hyper liberal. The twenty eighteen tariffs added about two percentage points onto the cost of the importans. The tarfity is talking about now, if he really goes through with it, will add seventeen percentage points. So this is protectionism on a scale not seen since the Great Depression.
And if you are a company, you will pass that on or pass as much of it as you can on, because otherwise you're shareholders won't be very pleased with you. So it is directly inflationary in the short term. I don't see any arguments against that. If Donald Trump persuades more production to come to the States, if he persuades companies currently operating in China to move their production facilities here,
in the long term, that will definitely be good. But it takes far longer to build a factory than it does to raise a price, and so there is still no way that you avoid an inflationary spike if he really goes through with this, and that will be bad for the bond market.
Currency traders are also focusing on what former President Trump has been saying about tariffs.
The currency traders take it as an absolute given that, particularly if he goes through with those tariffs, that it will be very bullish for the dollar. If the Trump proposals are accurate, that he's really going to try to deter near suring as well and really try to force people to bring production back to the US, this will mean a very strong dollar. You then get into the issue, as is so often the case, you need to start thinking in terms of a chess player and what the
next moves will be. If, as is likely, you get a startling strengthening of the dollar, which makes it that much harder for US exporters, presumably the next response either will be okay, maybe these tariff's answers to a great idea, or what can we do to push the dollar lower? Now?
One possibility which is not particularly positive for the markets is that we then have a President Trump trying to impinge upon the Fed's independence to get rates down when they would otherwise rise and weaken the dollar, which for any number of reasons would really terrify people. The other possibility, given that Trump at least put his name to a book of the deal, is that you could try to have a grand deal two weeken the dullo.
That's happened before when Ronald Reagan was the president, But the world has changed a lot since then, and John says it would be hard for Trump to broke were in agreement like that today. Coming up, how the Trump trade has evolved, how it's playing out in prediction markets, and what happens to the Trump trade when we find out the outcome of the election. That's next. Another place where you can see investors betting on a Trump win
is in the prediction markets. Today. They exist on sites like Predicted and the Iowa Electronic Markets where people can bet on the outcome of the election. But Bloomberg opinion columnist John Authors says prediction markets have a long history.
Prediction markets have been around for an extremely long time. They used to be thriving prediction markets in papal conclaves in the fifteenth and sixteenth century.
Who's going to be the next pope?
Who is going to be the next pope? Cardinals would tell their attendants who was leading, and they would rush out and put bets on it with the traders out there on the streets of Rome, and the betting markets could be surprisingly accurate, and the money that was involved was multi millions in today's today's terms, because obviously in Renaissance Rome, who is going to be the next pope?
Really about it, and there were prediction markets writing on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange for many decades at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Today, another one of these prediction markets is called poly Market.
It's a big and liquid market. Officially, Americans can't trade there, which ought to be a very big red flag sign. There can be some extra dispassion attitude that can come from not actually being American.
In recent days, a polymarket user who goes by Freddy nine nine on the site has bet more than forty five million dollars on a Republican victory. He's been identified as a French national with extensive trading experience and the financial services background, according to Polymarket, and John says one thing that sets polymarket apart is that, unlike other prediction markets, there is no limit on what you can bet.
It's a more liquid market. You can also express your conviction more easily because you can bet more. Polymarkets like any markets, if somebody enters with a really big bait, it will move, which is what's happened after Eaton Musk told everybody, look at polymarketing, isn't it wonderful?
John is talking about a post Musk made on x in early October in which he praised prediction markets as being quote more accurate than polls, as actual money is on the line.
The last time I checked, when we were recording this, I think polyma market put the odds on Trump winning at sixty two percent. That's more than a one in three chance that Kamala Harris is the next president. According to polymarket. You wouldn't bet your life on this. And that's to some extent the point of where a prediction market has its advantage. You see the price and then you think, well, I do think Donald Trump is probably
going to win. But do I really know that the Democrats don't have a better ground game they did last time? Do I really know that the polls aren't just missing lots of very motivated, angry young women who weren't voting last time because of the abortion issue. Actually, no, I don't know that. So am I really confident enough to bet much more than that. No, Actually, we'll leave it at only about a sixty percent chance. That is the benefit of prediction markets that they do capture that, But
it's not the same. There's there are certainly people who think that polymarket at sixty two percent for Trump means they think Donald Trump will get sixty two percent of the votes, which be an absolutely monstrous, historic landslide. No, it doesn't mean that that isn't going to happen.
I wonder what happens on election day. Say Trump wins, what does that mean for people who have bet on this Trump trade? If he loses, what does that mean.
In terms of the bond markets. I imagine you would see a big relief rally into bonds and you would probably see some degree of a sell off in stocks if you have a Kamala Harris presidency. If and I think it's very unlikely, but if if somehow or other John Tester wins in Montana or Ted Cruz loses in Texas, which would make a lot of people in this country extremely happy. But I still don't quite imagine it happening.
If somehow or other you get a clean sweep for Kamala Harris rather than a checked Kamala Harris, then I imagine the sell off in bonds would continue and the stock market would probably not like that very much either. I think the best outcome, probably for most asset classes, is Kamela checked by the Senate. Possibly Camela checked by the Senate and the House. That would not have any great negative response. I don't think.
How good is Wall streeted predicted the outcome of elections if you look at.
History, Oh, the number of times.
As good as the cardinals.
Yes, I mean the over history twenty sixteen, the polls were wrong. Answer with the prediction markets. It was one where for whatever reason, people just didn't catch what was happening. Over history, the various prediction markets that were available were better than the gallop pole over a series of elections,
So prediction markets generally are pretty good over history. The number of examples of really big sell offs or booms in response to an election result is pretty minimal, which means that Wall Street is generally not surprised by the results, twenty sixteen being the big, glaring exception to that. I think one of the things that's very difficult is again that you need to know about the chess moves ahead.
Like from what we know now, you can say various things about Harris versus a Trump foreign policy, domestic policy, but broadly speaking, it's not that obvious how different things would be.
This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm David Gura. This episode was produced by David Fox. It was edited by Caitlin Kenny and Sid Verma, and mixed by Alex Sagura. It was fact checked by Adriana Tapia. Our senior producer is Naomi Shaven. Our senior editor is Elizabeth Ponso. Our executive producer is Nicole Beemster Boor Sage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of Podcasts. If you liked this episode, make sure you subscribe and review The Big Take wherever you listen
to podcasts. It helps people find the show. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow. Hey, everyone, Bloomberg wants to hear from you. Help make shows like ours even better by taking the Bloomberg Audience Survey and have a coffee on Bloomberg. For doing it, visit YouTube dot com slash Bloomberg Podcasts and click the link in our profile or community section. To take the Bloomberg Survey, hosted by our partners Material, go to YouTube dot com slash Bloomberg Podcasts Today