Harris, Trump Election Effects on Financials

I'm an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. Coming Financials Policy. The fourth Covering Conversation was the first of several webinars that the Bloomberg Intelligence team has had on the US elections and October first, Nathan Dean, Elliott Stein, Alison Williams, Hermann Chan, and Arnold Kakuda met to discuss the implications of the US elections on financials, banks and asset managers. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out at

NDS at Bloomberg dot net. Thank you, Okay, Well, I have it at two minutes after the hour, so why don't we go ahead and get started. Hello and welcome. My name is Nathan Dean. I am a senior policy anost with Bloomberg Intelligence, and joining me on the discussion today is our senior investment banks analyst Alison Williams, our senior regional banks analyst Hermann Chan, our senior credit analyst

Arnold Kakuda, and our senior litigation analyst Elliott Stein. All of this is focused on financials, and we'd like to welcome you to the first of many of our elections series on the US elections, and again we're going to talk about financials. We're also going to record this as an episode for our Votes and Verdicts podcasts. So if you're listening to this after the fact, you can reach this via the Apple Spotify, our Heart Radio, and also

the Bloomberg terminal. And for those of you who don't know who Bloomberg Intelligence is, we are the investment research platform of Bloomberg LP. We have about five hundred analysts and strategists working across the globe and focused on all the major markets. Our coverage includes over two thousand equities and credits, and we have outlooks on more than ninety industries and market indices, currencies, commodities, and so if you want need to access any of those, you can always

reach that via the BEC function BICO. So let's go ahead and get started. So thank you again everybody for attending. What I want to do is just take a few minutes to talk about the election and the implications from the financial sector, and then I'll ask questions to Herman, Alison, Arnold and Elliott to give us their views on certain aspects of how it can assist your portfolio and how you should be thinking about the impact on the financial sector.

So I want to start with the US House of Representatives, because, as many of you may know, we have other elections this November other than the presidential race. We have the US House of Representatives, we have the Senate, we have the presidency. Now the House of Representatives, they're four hundred and thirty five members. Each member serves a two year term. About forty four individuals. According to our friends over at Bloomberg, government are either in toss up or leaning races, meaning

that it can go either way. Now, this is about twelve percent of that four hundred and thirty five. So the majority of House members when they go to bed on election night, their work is already done. They're going to go to bed knowing that they have already secured their vote. But with the House right now in control of the GOP two hundred and twenty to two hundred and eleven. It only takes a few individuals either way to secure the next, you know, the next control of

the House of Representatives. The reason why that the control of the House of Representatives is important to the financial sector is because twenty twenty five is going to be

a year of tax reform tax debate. The Trump era tax cuts expire at the tail end of twenty twenty five, and this was from two and twenty seventeen, and so things like the corporate tax rate, the state and local tax deduction, uncapitalized games, and so forth like that, all this is going to be in the discussion because neither party at this point wants to see those individual tax rates for most Americans to increase, and so there is

going to be a discussion. And if the Democrats control the House of Representatives, they will control the House in waves means committee or vice versa. And whoever controls the House and ways and means committee controls the opening salvo, the first step of negotiations, the base case, if you will, of tax reform. And that is why the House is

so important. Now I can't get into polling of the House races, But our general view is is that whoever wins the presidency takes the House, and it's going to be very close. So let's talk about the Senate. One hundred senators, thirty four of them are up for re election this year. It's actually usually one third, one third, one third thirty four this year because Nebraska has two Senate seats up due to Senator Ben Sass retiring. Now,

this is a very difficult race for the Democrats. The reason being is of those thirty four seats, twenty three of them are held by Democrats, and right now the Democrats have a fifty one to forty nine majority. There are four independents that caucus with the Democrats. But Stor Joe Mansion of West Virginia is retiring, and you don't need to be me or political strategist to know that it's more likely than not the Republicans are going to

take West Virginia. So now you're at a fifty to fifty and fifty to fifty control goes to the Vice president or whoever wins the presidency. But for the Democrats to keep the Senate, they essentially have to run the table and have an extremely good, extremely well run election night, because there are several seats that are up for risk. For example, Senator Cheron Brown, who's the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee in Ohio, he's running a very tough race.

He's a couple of points behind right now according to the latest statistics that I'm just reading off the terminal. The next thing is Senator John Tester, also a member of the Senate Banking Committee. He's in Montana. He's fighting for his political life right now because the last two election cycles in Montana he's barely been able to squeak

out a win. And right according to the polling again, he's about six points behind Senator Jackie Rosen and Nevada a swing state, Senator Debbie Stabanaw who's retiring come from Michigan. She's the chairman of the Senate and Committee. So my point here is is that for the Democrats, who essentially have control of the Senate, they have to run the table. And the reason why that's important for financial services is because the Senate does not have a fillibuster for nominations

or appointments. And so if you think the SEC Chairman Gary Ginsler may leave under a Kamala Harris presidency. The Republicans, if they take the Senate, will effectively be able to jam up a lot of time against her nominees and prevent her from putting into place individuals that she may seek. Now, the FED, for what it's worth, their tim appointments go through the end of twenty twenty five and beginning twenty twenty six. And I'm talking about FED Chairman Jerome Powell,

FED Vice Chairman Michael Barr. But if you're looking at the SEC, the FDIC, or the c of DC, if any of those individuals leave, the Republicans can effectively jam up the Vice president if she were to win. And if President Trump wins the Republican state the House, there's very little that Democrats could do to stall, slow, or or change those appointments. Now, the last thing I want to talk about is the presidential cycle. Now, I often

say that this is a race between three individuals. It's Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Donald Trump, and the couch. And what I mean by that is is that this is an election about turnout. The last two elections have had the most votes ever in US election history, and if that remains the same here, turnout is good, more likely than not, Vice President Kamala Harris will win. You know, if turnout is poor, more likely than not, Former President

Donald Trump will win. And now I can show you polling on both sides that says that both sides are going to win. It is going to be that close. Out of a one hundred and fifty or so million Americans that are going to vote in this election cycle, it's ultimately going to be around one hundred thousand Americans across seven swing states that are going to decide who the

next president is. It's not going to be me. I live in Virginia, and more likely than not won't be anybody else in my call who lives in New Jersey or New York. It's going to be individuals that live in Pennsylvania, Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada, Michigan. They are going to be the ones that decide who the next president will be. And it could be as close as if there's a potential snowstorm in Philadelphia that could swing in Pennsylvania a certain way, if there is a bad storm

in Phoenix that could swing states another way. It's going to be that close. So what it's important to keep in mind is what if scenarios Under a Kamala Harris presidency. You're going to see a couple of key themes. One, the Bosso three end game, which we're about to talk about in a minute, is going to likely move forward. You will see increased capital requirements for the banks ranging from two hundred and fifty billion in assets and up.

There will be another proposal coming out on executive compensation, probably additional proposals out there on curbing certain aspects and bonuses and deferrals and so forth. You may see another bite of the apple in terms of a new proposal on the enhanced supplementally leverage ratio. But in a Kamala Harris presidency, the one thing to keep in mind is is that in her history as Attorney General California, she has a history of going after the enforcement side of

the financial services sector. And we often have seen in her history that she will use investigations enforcement examinations, and we don't see that we see that trend continuing if she were to win. Now, I don't think you're going

to see much in the way of legislation. Remember, Congress is very difficult to get legislation through so again that examination and that enforcement side, and you will see a much more focus on consumer aspect of financial regulation, namely coming from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and so forth. Now in a President Trump presidency, well it could be a little it's a different story. You know,

there's a deregulatory effort. But for as long as it takes regulations to come into force, it also takes probably the same amount of time for deregulation efforts to take place. Now you have to go through a proposal, you have to go through a comment period, you have to go through a finalization. So if you ever hear Republicans talking about deregulation, they can do that and they can bypass

the opposition, but it takes time. It takes years. And so keep that in mind that if President Trump were to come into office and he says that I'll want to do something, more often than not, it will take time or it will take an active Congress. And for what it's worth, the only immediate thing that we're talking about that if President Trump were to come into fruition, the only true immediate impact that we see out there

right now is tariffs. Because the power of the presidency is a lot more powerful when it comes to executive orders in tariffs, but everything else either requires an Act of Congress which is difficult to come by, or ask to go to the regulatory route. The last thing I want to say about President Trump is his stance on crypto. He's made several remarks about how he wants to make the United States the crypto capital of the world. But here's where I'm going to get a little out of consensus.

My view is is that the crypto framework, of the regulatory crypto framework that firms like coinbase and other crypto players are seeking, I think can come back, whether or I think it can come and move into law, whether President Trump wins or where whether Vice President Harris wins.

And the reason being here, and this is what Elliott will hint at in his remarks is the courts are becoming more and more and more willing to get into the regulatory status of enforcement actions and regulations and so forth. And we currently have a murky regulatory environment because the courts will say one thing in one case but another thing in another case. In Congress itself does not like it when courts come in and try and tell them

what their job is. And so I do think a version of the Financial Innovation and Technology Act, and I don't want to get into specifics, but essentially tells the SEC you have authority over these types of tokens versus the CFTC having authority over these types of tokens will pass either if Vice President Harris or President Trump were to win. So I'm going to stop talking at this point. I'm going to open up four questions, and so I want to start with Herman and Herman, you know, you

cover the regional banks. Last year, you had one of the busiest first quarters in the history I think of Bloomberg Intelligence. So just at a high level question, are there any high level thoughts that you would like to have about how people should think about their portfolios as we approach the US election. Yeah?

for capital. Just as a refresher, the reproposal eliminates the risk rayed asset inflation for the regional banks for those under two hundred and fifty billion and assets. So that's a modest win. And you've already seen a lot of these regionals re answer the buybacks game, with a number of banks announcing share repurchases, including US Bank recently at their investor day a few weeks back. So that's all positive.

Capital is in a really good place for them, and they'll have plenty of time to meet these rules given the delayed implementation process. Corporate tax rates is something that you mentioned earlier. That's something I don't think has been

really contemplated in the bank stalks now. But I would say that regional banks, in particular, with all of their earnings and activities here in the US, any changes in the corporate tax rates would affect them more versus other types of corporations here in the US.

investment banks would be nine percent and for the regional banks would be three to four percent. But there's a little bit of a problem happening at the moment with the Basil three endgame, because the FETIS said, this is a plan, this is what we want to go forward with, but there seems to be a hiccup over at the FDIC because the FDIC is made up of five individuals and three of them currently are a no on this plan.

It's the two Republicans, and then it's the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rowhee Chopra, who doesn't seem to be on board with this weakening or this loosening of the Basil three endgame. Now, I do think that eventually this proposal will come forward, especially if Vice President Harris wins, but again they could be delayed until after the election. You have the c FPB Director Chopra does not want

to move on board with this. But Herman one quick follow up in this something that I always ask Herman, and I've been asking in this for about eighteen months now. Yeah, last year we saw a regional bank turmoil. How are the regional banks doing today? Is there any concern whatsoever with them?

to reduce their riskuated assets. A lot of them went on a so called ORWA diets online year and we've already moved past that with banks actually looking to grow their balance sheets, but the loan demand just really isn't there for them to do so, and lower interest rates going forward will help funding costs. You'll recall last year, in particular, after SVB banks had really had to re up their deposit game by paying up for deposits to really satisfy the customers that could go to other places

like money market funds and the like. So they've done that and they will reap the benefits of lower funding costs going forward with the feed a reserve looking to cut rates even more potentially later in the year.

talk about the busle three end game. You know, Arnold, I'm sorry Herman gave us the view from the regional side, you know, is there the similar story playing after the investment banks and then just thinking about it in a global sense, you know, we've seen the UK delayed their capital requirements as a result of the US in action, if you will. How did the American bank stand in terms of global capital requirements? Is there something to be concerned about?

banks are truly the global leaders. That's an area that the that the banks were very vocal in terms of making the US rivals less competitive with these rules, and so it really will be I think in the details in terms of what the changes are, and so I think, you know, JP Morgan had sort of set the expectation for a potential having of the impact of the rules when they went through a bunch of different scenarios that

investor day. But I would keep in mind that there are several different aspects and at the end of the day, it will depend on, you know, which parts of the rules are eased. And that that also does make me curious and perhaps you can talk about this, Nathan, But in terms of the FDIC's objection, are they objecting to things that might make these banks more globally competitive, because

that is generally not something that the FDIC supports. But just backing up for a second, and I'll just echo something that Herman said in terms of the banks having time to implement the rules. So I think that there was obviously some negative reactions when the rules came out. One thing I would point to is the fact that the banks have shown themselves to be very nimble over time.

The stress capital buffer requirements, which change every year based on the US stress tests, have helped them to show their flexibility. If we go back to twenty twenty two, for example, the JP Morgan, Bank of America and City Group had to very quickly shore up their standardized ratios by sixty to eighty basis point in a very in just a couple of quarters, and so I think that illustrates their nimbleness. Part of it is buybacks, of course, and part of it is things like non operational deposits.

At the end of the day, it's not about compliance, so it's not about downside risk. But I think it is for investors about upside in terms of the fact that just by mathematically, if you have a larger denominator that's required, returns are going to go down. That's generally how bank stock investors value the stock, So that is mathematically and negative aside from the fact that there's just you know, lesser less capital to be returned to shareholders over time.

is the podcast are fixed? Thinkham folks, I highly recommend you to take a listen to that. Are there macro issues at play here that are just beyond the US election.

policies are. I think, you know, from our discussions, the puzzle three endgame is very important to the banks. And so to the extent that uh, you know, deregulation is favored that would be generally good for banks. Fiscal stimulus is always pop for banks. Tax cuts are positive for banks directly, but also very positive for the investment environment.

Toronto Trump's goals. And what I mean by that, if the Republicans take the House, the Senate, and the presidency, then they can use their process called reconciliation where you can avoid the filibuster, the legislative filibuster, you can avoid it, and by a majority vote in the House, the majority vote in the Senate, and the signature of the presidency, you can have another round of tax cuts and you can essentially avoid any Democratic opposition. This is how President

Obama got Obamacare through. This is how President Trump got the first round of Trump tax cuts through. And this is how President Biden got the Inflation Reduction Act through. And so you know, if you ever think of like grandiose trillion dollar bills and either our tax cuts or stimulus and so forth, the odds of that increases if one party has to house, the Senate, and the presidency. Now you can only use it once per fiscal year, and you can only do it for things that impact

the budget. But always something to keep in mind on election night, if the Republicans have an extremely good night, then a much more broader tax reform bill comes back into the conversation. So, and now I'm gonna turn it over to I'm gonna ask a questions about the regional bank long term Debt rule. This is something that Arnold and I talk about almost on a weekly basis. So Arnold, can you give us your views? Though this is a

rule that's over at the Federal Reserve. I don't want to steal his thunder here, So can you give us a rule you know, synapsis of the rule, plus what you think your analysis shows in terms of how the banks are gonna respond?

the FDIC to do so. Right, we've had these big holes, you know, huge FDIC losses with SVB and First Republic going down. So and where we see it right now with the regional banks, the big regionals like the P and c's and the USBs, they look you know, very well set in terms of you know, they look you know that that whole set of banks, which now also includes American Express, given they've been over two hundred and fifty billion of assets for over four quarters, they have

about a thirty billion surplus. Right. But then it's really this you know, the one hundred to two hundred and fifty billion banks. That's where we see a shortfall about thirty billion. And you know, ironically or or interestingly, you know the banks with the biggest deficits for citizens as well as NYCB for citizens with about nine billion deficit, NYCB with the five billion. Now, these were the winners, right of this recent regional bank turmoil, you know, both

picking up assets from failed SBB and signature. Right, and so maybe they know something that we don't know, you know, will they be an exemption for you know, the one hundred to two hundred and fifty billion banks ironically, which you know are the banks that you know had all these issues. Right, So yeah, that's what we're waiting on that, I guess and Nathan you probably have a better sense of when we might finally right get get some sort of clarity or or an update on the stuff.

But you know what Arnold was referring to, that one hundred and two hundred and fifty billion dollars threshold is because when the boss the three D game was first proposed, it was proposed for one hundred billion banks and up one hundred billion in assets enough and outside of a small issue with the AOCI, the accumulating for the AOCI get a gang of a drawing blank at the moment, just because on my camera, you know, outside of a

small provision related to unri realized gains and losses, you know, the threshold had been pushed up to two hundred and fifty billion in assets. So there's this understanding or there's this idea out there that the regional bank long term Debt rule will also move up to two hundred and

fifty billion in assets. Now, in terms of where we're seeing for the future of this rule, what I will say is is that we've heard anecdotally across Washington that the regulators are looking for this to move before the Bottel three D game and before the elections. So I would not be surprised if you see this coming out in October. Normally regulators hate putting stuff out right before

the elections. However, if this rule doesn't come out before the elections and President Trump wins the chair, the acting control of the currency would immediately flip and also as a result, this rule probably would never get done. And so I think the current era regulators are going to put this out. I think there are going to be changes. Don't be surprised if it moves up to two hundred

and fifty billion in assets. Also, don't be surprised if there's changes, like to the denomination aspect of it and so forth. I will also state that if the Republicans state the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, they could use the Congressional Review Act. It's this procedure that allows Congress to overturn regulations within sixty legislative days. Because we're

currently in that window. I'm not saying that they would, but I'm just saying that there is a chance, so Arnold, My last question to you before we turn it over to Elliott is we talked a little bit about about the Buzzle three endgame. Do you have any additional thoughts you'd want to share on that?

we're hearing that the the reproposal might be fifty percent less owners. So if that's the case, then a lot of these banks will look so much better, right, they'd have a lot of still excess capital and kind of aside from the Goldman and Morgan Stanley's but and so that'd be welcome news. And in the process, uh, they're holding so much extra common equity that they're squeezing their preferreds.

They're they're they're redeeming their their expensive preferreds. And so the technicals are really strong and in the preferred space. But you know, actually I want to kind of go back if I can to. You know, we talked about if if you know, Trump becomes president, there might be more inflation. You know, the Terrists might cause inflation and

stuff like that. But you know, looking at at the various asset classes that that I cover and as well as you know I partner with uh with with Alison and Herman, you know, you know, I think with this, you know, in a Harris presidency, I think it's more you know, as you guys say, it's it's more of the status quo. You know, things are kind of going to remain kind of as is, you know, the regulatory

agenda and whatnot. But with a Trump presidency, you know that this this hot air balloon of regulation you know,

that might get popped like the like like the spy balloon. Right, So so basically with less less regulation you might have and Alison talked about this, for equities, it might be a little bit more positive because you know, return on equity, your profits over your equity, that that's a key metric, right, And so if if equity requirements you know, might be pulled back a little bit, that's going to help your denominator. If you can take more risk, you might be able

to increase your profits. Right, So you know, maybe the you know that that might be a little bit more

positive for equities. And then what we do see some risk is actually for preferreds which might have longer duration, right, And and where that comes from is you know, with with increased terrafs under under Trump presidency, you might see the yield curve steepen, right, So the so the long end rates might rise and some of these longer duration preferreds, which kind of trade off of longer yields, that might

be impacted a bit. And then in terms of senior debt though, we think it's kind of more neutral because you know, as Alison mentioned, these stress tests every year right when requiring these banks to hold more equity, that that's been a positive. And so if that kind of goes away, that's not great, but then that's kind of offset by Okay, but if profits are higher, you know

that that's also good for banks. So we see, you know, a potential trump when is you know, kind of more positive for equities, less positive for for lower longeration preferreds, kind of neutrals for the senior debt.

financial markets in the in March of last year. And the one thing I would say is that, you know, first of all with rates set to go the other way. That generally provides I think some relief and some concerns. I would say also, you know, specifically, you know, Bank of America was the one that stood out just in terms of you know, the metric versus other banks. But you know, there is if you did the full analysis in terms of the deposits they had, the liquidity they had,

certainly those all provided some comfort. It was something though I think that you know, investors still need.

We're at three point seven percent now and in June it was over four point four percent, So you're going to see those losses narrow as the ten year changes.

So that's positive for the banks. And as as I entriculated earlier with as with three end game changes, the regionals had already incorporated these unrealized losses, at least on the AFS side, into their capital calculations, and so that was already maked in into the studies even before the updated reproposal, which didn't change the calculus on that front. So thanks for all prepared for that. The losses will be manageable and they will narrow over time, and that

could potentially even accelerate if given the way. That's in your effort, right.

and A if you have additional questions. I'm going to turn over to Elliott now to talk a little bit more about litigation, because if you haven't paid attention to the courts yet, and I'm saying this is not as a non lawyer, you certainly want to pay attention to the courts now because several key rulemakings from the Supreme Court over the last few months shut run difference, major questions, and so forth are going to dramatically change how Washington

operates in the next few years. And we haven't seen it yet, but it's coming. So Elliott, what are you watching in terms of the election, in terms of litigation, which courts? You know, will the Supreme Court change all that much after the election? Can you give us your thoughts?

difficult for the president to get judges confirmed. You know, it's a Republican Senate is not going to be willing to confirm President President Harris judge Judges. Similarly, you know, a Democratic Senate is probably going to be hesitant to concern a lot. It's going to be hesitant to confirm a lot of President Trump's judges, so at most the president will be stuck, you know, having to nominate very

moderate judges. But you know that that sort of brings me to my next point, why why do courts even matter? And I think the last four years have really crystallized why courts matter so much, similar to what you just said in the in the remarks before your questions, because without a filibuster proof majority in Congress, you know, either president is going to be stuck doing a lot via

the regulators. And you know, we saw in the last four years we had this perfect storm very aggressive regulators uh in the Biden administration, running into judiciary and courts that were very concerned with administrative overreach. And as a result, we saw a lot of Biden's regulations that you know, pertain to the financial sector but also other sectors get challenged in court and a lot of those lawsuits wound

up succeeding. For example, the SEES private funds rule was struck down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals back in June. You know, the year before that, we saw Biden's student debt relief plan get struck down by the Supreme Court. And you know, I'm tracking a whole number

of ongoing lawsuits challenging other Biden financial regulations. You know, one I'm writing about, you know, pretty actively is the CFPB's credit card late feed rule, which would reduce sort of the safe harbor for late fees that credit card issuers can charge. The SEC's climate Disclosure rule is another one that's tied up in litigation. And I have a table on the terminal and you know, feel free to reach out to me if you're listening to this and

and you want to see this table. But it shows, you know, at least a dozen other lawsuits that we're tracking that are uh, you know, these are financial regulations that are tied up in litigation, and the are cases challenging the SEC's Consolidated Audit Trail, SEC rules over a short sales and the definition of a dealer, things like the Labor Department's fuduciary rule, also the Labor Department's es do Taibricer rule, And like you said, with the major

questions doctrine doctrine and the end of Chevron deference. You know, a lot of these lawsuits have a good chance of succeeding, as we've seen in other lawsuits already. So that's why the courts matter for whether regulations, you know, will survive judicial review.

by President Trump on that court but also other Republican presidents, and they tend to be pretty concerned with administrative overreach, and we've seen that in a lot of their rulings. You know, sort of bringing back regulatory with what they perceive as regulatory overreach. But let me let me also talk about the Supreme Court, right because you know, it sort of starts there, right the Supreme Court has a six to three majority of judges justices appointed by Republicans.

I don't see that changing anytime soon, but you know, it is worth keeping in mind that, you know, vacancies can happen at any time, you know, you know, due to the laws of nature, and it's worth keeping find the ages of some of the justices to sort of try to figure out who might be retiring. When the oldest justices on the court right now are Clarence Thomas

and Sam Alito, both you know, very conservative. Thomas will be seventy six and Alito will be seventy four on inauguration day after that, Justice Soda Meyer, you know, appointed by a Democratic president, She'll be seventy on inauguration day. After that, they're all under seventy. But if Trump wins, if you know, President Trump wins again, you know, I think he's likely to get to he'll probably replace Thomas and Alito if if they retire, which I think they would.

And then similarly, if if Harris wins, you know, I think it's likely that Justice Soto Mayor will retire and Harris would be able to replace her. But again, given the ages, you never know when other openings might open up. You mentioned the Fifth Circuit that has a twelve to five majority of judges appointed by Republicans. Another one, you know, another court, another federal appeals court to look at is the Eighth Circuit that has an even starker majority of

judges appointed by Republicans. That's a ten to one majority. So you know that, and and that that court is where the SEC climate disclosure rule is currently, so you know, it's just, uh, it's it's it's just given given the balance of the judges on that court, it's likely that that the that that rule I think will get struck down. And I think, you know, the industry challenging the rule

has very compelling arguments. But you know, the election matters, you know, because there are a bunch of other federal appeals courts that are actually much closer that have either one or that are you know, have a balance where either party only has a one or two seat majority. So depending on who wins the presidency, a lot of these circuit courts could flip right from you know, one party, from judges appointed by one party to judges one by

the other party. And President Trump was able to flip three of the federal appeals courts and Biden was only he flipped one of those back.

appreciate you and wish you a great week. Thank you