October 19, 2016
Election update: A Trump or Clinton victory is not a return
to business as usual
Introduction
This is an updated version of a report written last July analyzing:




Who is most likely to win the U.S. election
The growing bipartisan backlash against free trade
The impact of a Clinton or Trump victory on various sectors of the economy
The immediate general market reaction following either a Clinton or Trump victory
Many of their positions have been significantly influenced by an electorate that is frustrated over decades of stagnant
wages, rising income inequality and the perceived negative impact of past free trade agreements.
Donald Trump won the Republican nomination by taking positions that are against the traditional Republican orthodoxy of
strong support for free trade and corporate interests; while Hillary Clinton has moved to the left of political spectrum on
many issues in order to reflect both the changing mood of the country and the Democratic Party base. The bottom line is
that regardless of who wins the U.S. election increased levels protectionism and/or government intervention will
be forthcoming.
Potential Election outcomes: The polls are heavily leaning in favour of Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton’s demographic advantage
There is no question that demographics heavily favor the Democrats over the Republicans. This is because minority voters
tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat. African-Americans, Latinos, Asians and other non-whites rose from 12% of eligible
voters in 1980 to 28% in 2012.1 President Obama got 71% and 91% of the Hispanic and African American vote respectively in
the last election. In contrast, the polls show that Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric has deeply hurt his support among minority
voters and women. Given the wide gap in support, the main question is not whether Clinton will win a large share of the
minority vote, but whether they will show up to vote for Clinton at close to the same levels they did for Obama in 2012.
1
“How Demographics Will Shape The 2016 Election,” Fivethirtyeight, December 2015
GEOPOLITICAL BRIEFING
Donald’s Trump’s increasingly narrow path to victory
As for Donald Trump, a leading indicator of his chances for victory is how he polls in the crucial swing and rustbelt states.
Swing states are regions in which both the Democratic and Republican candidates have a good chance of winning, while
Rustbelt states are regions that have seen their once large industrial sectors shrink dramatically.The anger against free
trade, particularly in the rust belt states, represents his best chance for electoral gains. Other factors that could boost
Trump’s support are another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, a major scandal involving the Clintons and a much
stronger third debate performance. Another question is whether similar to Brexit there exists a substantial pool of
American voters that refuse to admit to pollsters that they are in fact Trump supporters.
Another aspect of the election that must be followed closely is support for third party candidates. David Johnson of the
Libertarian Party is currently polling at 6.5%, while Jill Stein of the Green Party is at 2.4%. The last serious third party
candidate was in 1992. Bill Clinton won with only 43% of the vote, versus 37.4% for George Bush (senior) and 19% for
Ross Perot. Question: Will support for these third-party candidates fade as they do in most elections, or is this
time different?
Finally, one major reason why Donald Trump not fallen behind even further in the polls despite his many gaffes is the
general collapse in trust for the traditional governing elite. The view that this elite is responsible for America’s bungled
wars, the financial crisis and stagnant wages has allowed Trump to survive errors that would have eliminated most other
establishment candidates. Win or loss, the rise of Trump (and Sanders for that matter) has changed the country’s
geopolitical landscape and is a warning to the governing elite that the American public is angry with the current
state of affairs.
Indeed, should large segments of the population still continue feel that their interests are not being taken into
account, another (perhaps less bombastic) candidate could emerge from either party to run
on many of Trump’s main ideas of greater protectionism, stricter controls on immigration and greater withdrawal
from global affairs/commitments in the next election. Europe has shown that anti-establishment candidates/parties
have tended to gain in popularity over a period of several election cycles.
Source: “Trust in government: 1958-2015” Gallup, November 2015
Hillary Clinton is the outright favorite to win. To date, the combined average of recent national polls show Clinton
holding a 7%-8% advantage over Trump. She is also leading in many crucial battleground states such as Florida,
Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada and North Carolina. The betting markets are giving a well over 80% probability
that Clinton will prevail over Trump.
2 GEOPOLITICAL BRIEFING
The growing U.S. backlash against free trade
For a very long time, the disconnect between the pro-free trade elites of both U.S. political parties and the working
class who viewed free trade in a more negative light remained in the background. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders
(who provided an unexpected strong challenge to Hillary Clinton) brought this issue to the forefront. All of this in turn
has forced many high ranking U.S. politicians, including Hillary Clinton, to take increasingly tough positions on free trade.
In fact, opposition to free trade is now one of the few things that unites an otherwise deeply divided U.S.
electorate.
What effect does foreign trade have on the US labor market
Percentage of respondents
75%
Trump
voters
60%
All
voters
48%
Clinton
voters
27%
Clinton
voters
19%
All
voters
20%
All
voters
Trump
voters
Creates US jobs
Clinton
voters
14%
12%
8%
Trump
voters
Loses US jobs
No effect
NBF Economics and Strategy (data via CBS/NYT poll, July 2016)
This anti-free trade sentiment is reinforced by demographics. A recent poll by YouGov shows that after the age of 45,
Americans tend to view free trade in a more negative light.2 This is largely because many of them have gone through a
long period of stagnant wages. For the first time in U.S. history people aged 45+ will account for the majority of eligible
voters in the upcoming election. Americans aged 45+ tend to vote at much higher rates than their fellow younger citizens.
Mr. Trump has taken the toughest anti-trade stance of the two candidates. He has come out against approving the
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and has called for NAFTA, which he labelled “the worse trade deal in
history,”3 to be renegotiated. His positions include imposing tariffs on imports from countries accused of employing
illegal trade practices.
Mrs. Clinton, in contrast, has long been seen as being more supportive of free trade. But the growing
protectionist mood has forced her to come out against TPP, even though she was the driving force behind
the negotiation of this trade deal during her time as President Obama’s Secretary of State. She recently said:
“My message to every worker in Michigan and across America is this: I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds
down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership."4 She has promised to create a new position of chief trade
2
3
4
“Support for free trade highest among millennials,” Yougov, May 10, 2016
“Rustproofing,” The Economist, July 2, 2016
“Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump stand on the economy,” Business Insider, Sept 24, 2016
3 GEOPOLITICAL BRIEFING
prosecutor that would directly report to the President and triple the number of officials devoted to ensuring that America’s
trade partners comply with the rules.
Will politicians change their anti-free trade tune once in office?
U.S. politicians have a long history of criticizing free trade agreements when running for office, and then supporting them
after they win. Indeed, Obama did not follow through on his pledge to renegotiate NAFTA by adding labor rights and
environmental protections to its mix of provisions after winning his first election in 2008. Pro-free traders are thus hoping
that Hillary Clinton will do the same if she wins, particularly with regard to getting TPP approved. However, it is unlikely
that that she will be able to walk back her anti-free trade stance as easily as other politicians have in the past for
the following reasons.



The public’s strong opposition to free trade has become a major campaign issue
The widespread view that many countries are not complying with their trade agreement obligations
The long period of wage stagnation and one of the weakest economic recoveries in the Post-World War II Era has
only further fueled anti-free trade sentiment.
Could a President Trump unilaterally rip up trade agreements?
Trump’s threats have sparked a debate over whether the President actually has the authority to withdraw from trade deals
such as NAFTA without Congressional approval. Some experts feel that, according to Article 2205 of the agreement,
a President could withdraw from NAFTA after having only given 6 months notice. Other experts believe Congress would need to sign off as well. Regardless of who is right, we believe it is highly unlikely that Trump or any other President for that matter
would actually withdraw from NAFTA or any other trade agreement. This is because any attempt to rip up a trade
agreement such as NAFTA would elicit an uproar in Congress, disrupt companies with supply chains spread across the
hemisphere and attract a wave of lawsuits seeking a temporary injunction pending the outcome of a trial. All of this would
consume the Presidency and prevent the administration from advancing other parts of its agenda. Finally, the US has not
withdrawn from a trade agreement since 1866.
But most importantly, the President does not have to resort to the nuclear option of ripping up trade agreements
to advance a more protectionist agenda. He has the legal authority to impose tariffs or quotas on virtually any
sector without the approval of Congress. The laws granting him this authority include the Trading with the Enemy Act
of 1917, the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974 and the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The only way Congress could block this authority is by passing
new legislation to repeal powers it previously gave to the President, but this would require a two-thirds majority in both the
House and the Senate to override a Presidential veto.
Growing Trade tensions between China and the United States
America’s massive trade deficit ($365 billion in 2015) is a rising source of tension between the two countries. There is a
widespread feeling among the U.S. public that since China joined the WTO in 2001 it has not lived up to its free trade
commitments. China is accused of, among other things, forcing foreign companies to transfer their intellectual property in the
form of joint ventures to Chinese companies in exchange for access to its markets. To add insult to injury, China has often
been able to purchase types of companies in the U.S. and elsewhere that western firms are barred from purchasing in China.
Critics accuse politicians of not having taken sufficient measures to hold China to account for breaking WTO regulations.
This explains why Donald Trump’s aggressive call for tariffs on Chinese imports has resonated with so many voters.
He recently called China’s entrance into WTO “the greatest job theft in history.”5 He has promised to formally designate
China a currency manipulator, crack down on illegal state financing of Chinese companies and fight back against the theft
of intellectual property. This in turn has forced Hillary Clinton to take a similarly tough line with China.
5
“Rustproofing,” The Economist, July 2, 2016
4 GEOPOLITICAL BRIEFING
U.S.: trade balance with China keeps widening
U.S. imports from China and U.S. exports to China
500
$ (Billions)
450
400
350
U.S. imports
from China
300
250
200
150
100
U.S. exports
to China
50
0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
NBF Economics and Strategy (data via U.S. Census Bureau)
Another factor adding to tensions with China is that on average only about 4% of the parts found in Chinese
imports are sourced from the U.S., versus 40% for Mexican imports. Despite the rhetoric from Trump, this makes
imports from Mexico more politically acceptable than those from China.
Ironically, rising labor costs in China and increasing automation of the industrial sector mean that China’s competitive
advantage over the developed world could be nearing its end. But a revitalized U.S. manufacturing sector would not
necessarily mean a return to past levels of employment due to increasing levels of automation. Despite the fact U.S.
manufacturers are producing 47% more in inflation-adjusted dollar terms than they did 20 years ago, employment in this
sector has declined by 29% over this period.6
The next section focuses on the positions of each candidate in various sectors
Clinton and Trump differ widely on Energy Policy
Mr. Trump has pledged to rollback environmental regulations on fossil fuels, reduce subsidies for renewable
energy, approve Keystone and cancel the Paris Agreement committing nearly 200 nations to lower carbon
emissions. Given that all of these policies were largely implemented via executive orders from President Obama,
a President Trump could cancel many of them without seeking approval from Congress.
6
“The Economy is Rigged, and Other Presidential Campaign Myths,” The New York Times, May 6, 2016
5 GEOPOLITICAL BRIEFING
Mrs. Clinton, for her part, has promised to significantly tighten regulations surrounding shale gas and oil
production. This includes more stringent controls on water pollution and chemical usage. She also supports giving
local communities a greater say over whether shale oil and gas production should be allowed in their jurisdictions.7
Similar to trade, Clinton has been forced to dial back her past public support for shale and oil gas production in favour of
renewable energy in order to maintain the support of the Democratic Party base.8 She has, among other things, promised
to produce a third of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, three years quicker than Obama.
Clinton’s attempt to follow in Obama’s footsteps of implementing energy policy via executive orders hinges on
whether Obama’s plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector without Congressional
approval survives its court challenge. In February, the Supreme Court delayed the enforcement of these regulations
pending the outcome of a lawsuit brought by 28 states arguing Obama’s attempt to implement climate regulations via
executive order infringed on their constitutional rights.
Clinton and Trump clash on financial regulations
Mr. Trump has promised to repeal the 2010 Dodd-Frank law. While winning Congressional approval to repeal it would
be very difficult, the law’s impact could be reduced by selective enforcement. For example, a President Trump could
appoint officials to various financial regulatory bodies that would be less inclined to strictly enforce the letter of the law.
As for Clinton, she has promised to reinforce 2010 Dodd-Frank law by among other things raising capital
requirements for big banks. She also supports clawing back compensation from executives at financial
institutions who have received large fines from regulators.
On a side note, both Democratic and Republican platforms include calls for the restoration of 1933 Glass-Steagall law that
separated commercial and investment banking (removed by Bill Clinton in 1999). While Presidents do not always follow
their party platforms once in power, the insertion of these clauses (at the behest of the rank and file) combined with the
negative view Americans have of banks in general (only 27% have confidence in banks)9 means that the financial sector
could be facing greater regulatory headwinds in the future.
Two widely different fiscal proposals
One of the starkest differences between the two is their fiscal policies. Mr. Trump has promised to cut taxes for both
companies and individuals. The official corporate tax rate would go from 35% to 15%. It important to note however
that most corporations pay a much lower effective tax rate due to loopholes. He has also promised to cut the number
of individual income tax brackets by half and bring rates down to 12%, 25% and 33%. The top individual tax rate is
currently 39.6%.
In contrast, Clinton’s proposals largely center on raising taxes on higher income earners and businesses.
This includes raising the marginal income-tax rate to 43.6% from 39.6% on individual income exceeding $5 million.
Those earning more than $1 million would be subject to a minimum 30% income tax. She also wants to change the
capital gains tax code from its current 20% tax for people who hold investment for more than one year to only
preserving that rate for those who hold onto their investments for a minimum of 6 years. These tax increases
would finance an electoral platform that includes a higher minimum wage, much greater funding for university education,
more healthcare subsidies and 12 weeks paid leave for parents with a newborn child.
Neither Trump nor Clinton has proposed a plan to deal with the long term drivers of the public debt
The next president will take power with the national debt at post-World II highs. America’s public debt currently stands at
over $14 trillion or 77% of GDP. Under Clinton’s plan, the Washington-based Tax Foundation estimates that debt would
grow from nearly 77% of GDP today to over 86% by 2026; under Trump’s plans, debt would grow to 105% of GDP.10
7
“Clinton Against American Energy,” Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2016
“Does Hillary Clinton support fracking?” Polifact, April 13, 2106
9
Gallup, June 2016
10
“Promises and Price Tags: A Preliminary Update,” Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, September 22, 2016
8
6 GEOPOLITICAL BRIEFING
Luckily for both of them, the public is much less worried about the perils of rising debt levels. A recent Pew survey found
just slightly over half of Americans consider the budget deficit a top priority, down from 72% in 2013.11 This complacency
is reinforced by the fact the U.S. is now - thanks to rock-bottom interest rates -- making the lowest debt payments as a
percentage of GDP since the mid-70s even though debt levels are much higher today.12
The potential for bipartisan action regarding corporate funds held abroad.
The European Commission ruling that Apple owes $14.5 billion to Ireland due to illegal tax breaks could
spur American politicians to agree on a reduced tax rate for funds that corporations repatriate from abroad.
The U.S government is worried that the EU tax ruling marks the beginning of a trend by certain countries to lay
claim to some of the over $2 trillion of profits that American firms have amassed offshore. Trump has called for a
one time repatriation tax of 10% on corporate funds that are transferred into the country from abroad. Clinton does not
have a formal position on this issue.
The Healthcare sector
Both Trump and Clinton have promised to crack down on high drug costs by allowing the federal government to
negotiate the price it pays for drugs on behalf of retirees under Medicare (as is the case in most other countries).
Clinton also supports creating a commission to watch for sudden major price increases of older life-saving
drugs.13 If they followed through on their promise, this would have a tremendous impact because healthcare companies
tend to follow Medicare’s lead when setting prices. In 2014, Medicare spent $143 billion on drugs, while total U.S.
pharmaceutical sales were $317 billion.14
Source: “Price of branded prescription drugs in the US doubles in 5 years,” Financial Times, March 15, 2016
While prior efforts to pass legislation allowing for the government to negotiate drug prices has failed due to stiff resistance
from the pharmaceutical lobby, the growing public anger at high drug prices has increased the odds legislation to this
effect will be passed. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows that 93% of Democrats and 74% of Republicans
support allowing the government to negotiate the price of drug purchases on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.15 Even if
11
“Budget deficit slips as public priority,” Pew Research, January 21, 2016
“Federal Outlays: Interest as Percent of Gross Domestic Product,” St Louis Federal Reserve
13
“How Trump and Clinton Would Fix the "Crazy" U.S. Health System,” Fortune, October 18, 2016
14
“Not Up for Negotiation, U.S. News, February 9, 2016
15
“Searching for Savings in Medicare Drug Price Negotiations,” Kaiser Family Foundation, February 9, 2016.
12
7 GEOPOLITICAL BRIEFING
no new legislation is passed, a combination of growing public anger against high drug prices and negative media
stories will increase the level of regulatory scrutiny on drug companies going forward.
As for Obamacare, Mrs. Clinton has promised to expand it. She would increase tax credits for people using the individual
insurance marketplaces, permit people to buy into Medicare at a younger age and add a government-run insurance plan
to compete with private insurers on the exchanges. She has also proposed to reduce Americans’ out-of-pocket healthcare
costs via a refundable tax credit.
While Trump has promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, he also supports some form of universal health care. He
has proposed eliminating insurance exchanges and setting up tax-free health savings accounts for people with highdeductible insurance plans. He also wants to permit companies to sell insurance across state lines to boost competition
and reduce prices. Finally, he supports creating high-risk insurance pools for people with medical conditions that make it
hard to get coverage on their own.16
The focus that both their plans have on controlling healthcare costs via either increased government intervention
or competition is bad news for many healthcare companies that have long been used to raising their prices as
they see fit.
A shared view that America’s infrastructure is in urgent need of modernization
While Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton disagree on many things, the urgent need to revamp America’s
infrastructure is not one of them. Hillary Clinton has called for a $275 billion to be spent on infrastructure, including the
creation of a national infrastructure bank. She also wants to restore Build America Bonds to help local governments attract
private capital. The Trump campaign does not have a detailed infrastructure plan, but Trump has publicly said he would
spend $500 billion on infrastructure in order to stimulate the economy.
The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that, at current spending projections, the U.S. will fall $1.44 trillion
short of the $3.32 trillion needed to be invested in infrastructure through 2025. The case for infrastructure spending is
made even stronger by the federal government’s incredibly low borrowing costs. Repairing America’s fraying infrastructure
would also employ legions of blue collar workers, one of the hardest hit classes of workers.
A shared view that Defense spending must increase
Trump has been by far the most aggressive in promising to increase defense spending. For starters, he wants
to cancel a 2011 budget agreement that has led to several years of cuts to defense spending. He also wants to
significantly boost troop levels, increase the number of fighter planes in the Air Force by 100 and build another 75 ships
and submarines for the Navy. If he managed to get his plans approved, it is estimated that an additional $60-$80 billion
would be spent annually on defense for the next several years. The current military budget is $595 billion.17
As for Clinton, although she has not made specific proposals about a defense spending, she also wants to put
an end to the trend of less funding for defense. Moreover, she has a reputation of being much more hawkish than
Obama with regard to the use of military force.
Growing worldwide geopolitical tensions increases the odds of a bipartisan agreement to boost defense
spending. These tensions include a Middle East racked by wars, growing tensions between Russia and NATO, North
Korea’s nuclear weapons program, China’s attempt to control the South China Sea and fears over terrorism.
The importance of who controls Congress
With so much attention being cast on the Presidential race this year, it easy to forget that the ability of either a President
Clinton or Trump to get their agenda approved is highly dependent on who controls the two houses of Congress.
16
17
“How Trump and Clinton Would Fix the "Crazy" U.S. Health System,” Fortune, October 18, 2016
“Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton Clash on National Security Issues,” Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2016
8 GEOPOLITICAL BRIEFING
Current polls suggest that should Hillary become President the Democrats would be well positioned to reclaim the Senate
from the GOP. Republicans currently hold 54 of the Senate’s 100 seats. The Republicans must defend 24 seats in
November, versus only 10 for the Democrats. When it comes to the House of Representatives, the Republican’s control
is much more secure. The Republicans have 247 seats, versus 188 for the Democrats. Democrats would have to win 30
seats to take back control of the chamber. The Republican’s hold on Congress has been reinforced by Republican
governors in key swing states redrawing legislative districts in a manner that maximizes the number of seats
their party can win. This process, which is called gerrymandering, involved moving likely democratic voters to
other electoral districts. North Carolina is a perfect example of the significant impact gerrymandering can have.
Despite the fact 51% of North Carolinians voted Democrat in the 2012 Congressional election, gerrymandering resulted in
the state electing nine Republicans and four Democrats to the U.S. House. To be fair, the Democrats have also engaged
in gerrymandering in states they control, albeit to a much lesser extent than the Republicans.
In order to overcome the effects of gerrymandering, the Democrats would have to win the Congressional popular
vote by 7% to 9% to have a chance of regaining control of the House of Representatives.
In contrast, a victory by President Trump, even by the slimmest of margins, would likely result in the Republicans retaining
control of both houses of Congress.
Conclusion: The Market impact of a Clinton or trump victory
A Clinton victory would immediately be followed by a relief rally in the markets. But should the Democrats defy
expectations and regain control of both houses of Congress the markets would eventually transition from
euphoria to worry. This is because a President Clinton would be in a much better position to implement her campaign
promises of higher taxes on corporations/investors and greater regulation of the financial, energy and healthcare sectors.
This includes a promise to appoint antitrust officials that would analyze past and future merger deals for signs of
“exploitation of excessive market power.”18
As for a Trump victory, it would immediately be followed by short term market panic over fears that he could spark a
global trade war. The risk of market turmoil is reinforced by the fact polls show that the citizens of almost all G20 countries
(with the exception of Russia) are rooting for a Clinton victory. Fears have also been raised that a Trump victory would be
followed-up by a selloff of U.S. treasuries. But the odds are more likely that U.S. treasuries would ironically become the safe
18
“Liberal Economists Think Big Companies Are Too Powerful.
Hillary Clinton Agrees,” The New York Times, October 4, 2016
9 GEOPOLITICAL BRIEFING
haven for the market panic created by a surprise Trump victory due to a lack of viable alternatives. This is similar to what
happened in 2008 when U.S. treasuries became a safe haven for investors from the global financial crisis that began in the U.S.
A victory for Trump would also likely mean Republicans retaining control of both houses of Congress. This means Trump would
be in a good position to win Congressional approval for certain parts of his agenda. This includes tax cuts for corporations and
individuals, more infrastructure spending and less business regulation. The energy sector would be the most impacted by a
Trump victory because he could unilaterally overturn so many of Obama’s policies without requiring congressional approval.
Looming trends regardless of who wins
Regardless of the outcome of the U.S. election, the mood of the electorate will force the winner to take a more protectionist
stance. This in turn raises the risk that other countries will retaliate by raising tariffs on U.S. goods. In this environment,
investors must do more than simply analyze a country’s – or a company’s – fundamentals. They must also look at any ongoing
or potential future tensions with trading partners, since such conflicts can significantly impede access to key markets.
Healthcare is a sector that will face a tougher regulatory environment regardless of who wins. Drug companies in
particular will face increased political/regulatory resistance to price increases.
Increased infrastructure investment, more defense spending and a one time low tax rate on funds that
corporations repatriate from abroad are among the areas where the potential for bipartisan cooperation exists.
The crucial first two years of a new Presidential administration
It also important to note that historically Presidents have had the most success in implementing their agenda in the first year or
two of being in power. After that the odds of signing major bills into law tends to drop significantly. President Obama is a
perfect case in point. In the first 18 months of his first mandate he passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
Obamacare and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform Act. Indeed, as the chart below indicates, the increasing inability of the
two parties to compromise on issues mean that less and less bills are getting passed. Unprecedented levels of animosity
generated by a particularly acrimonious Presidential campaign could lead to even lower levels of cooperation between
Republicans and Democrats in the future. This legislative gridlock would come at time when monetary policy is
increasingly being seen as losing its effectiveness. Bills passed by U.S. Congress: 1947‐2014 Source: “113th Congress will likely enact fewer new laws than any since WWII,” Washington Examiner, September 2014
Finally, the greater levels of protectionism and/or government intervention being pushed by both Trump and
Clinton will, all things being equal, squeeze corporate profit margins.
Angelo Katsoras
10 GEOPOLITICAL BRIEFING
ECONOMICS AND STRATEGY
Montreal Office
514-879-2529
Toronto Office
416-869-8598
Stéfane Marion
Marc Pinsonneault
Warren Lovely
Chief Economist & Strategist
[email protected]
Senior Economist
[email protected]
MD, Public Sector Research and Strategy
[email protected]
Paul-André Pinsonnault
Matthieu Arseneau
Senior Fixed Income Economist
[email protected]
Senior Economist
[email protected]
Krishen Rangasamy
Angelo Katsoras
Senior Economist
[email protected]
Geopolitical Analyst
[email protected]
General – National Bank Financial (NBF) is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of National Bank of Canada. National Bank of Canada is a public company listed on Canadian stock exchanges.
The particulars contained herein were obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable but are not guaranteed by us and may be incomplete. The opinions expressed are based upon our
analysis and interpretation of these particulars and are not to be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell the securities mentioned herein.
Research Analysts – The Research Analyst(s) who prepare these reports certify that their respective report accurately reflects his or her personal opinion and that no part of his/her compensation
was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views as to the securities or companies.
NBF compensates its Research Analysts from a variety of sources. The Research Department is a cost centre and is funded by the business activities of NBF including, Institutional Equity Sales
and Trading, Retail Sales, the correspondent clearing business, and Corporate and Investment Banking. Since the revenues from these businesses vary, the funds for research compensation
vary. No one business line has a greater influence than any other for Research Analyst compensation.
Canadian Residents – In respect of the distribution of this report in Canada, NBF accepts responsibility for its contents. To make further inquiry related to this report, Canadian residents should
contact their NBF professional representative. To effect any transaction, Canadian residents should contact their NBF Investment advisor.
U.S. Residents – With respect to the distribution of this report in the United States, National Bank of Canada Financial Inc. (NBCFI) is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(FINRA) and a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). This report has been prepared in whole or in part by, research analysts employed by non-US affiliates of NBCFI
that are not registered as broker/dealers in the US. These non-US research analysts are not registered as associated persons of NBCFI and are not licensed or qualified as research analysts
with FINRA or any other US regulatory authority and, accordingly, may not be subject (among other things) to FINRA restrictions regarding communications by a research analyst with the subject
company, public appearances by research analysts and trading securities held a research analyst account.
All of the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect the research analysts’ personal views regarding any and all of the subject securities or issuers. No part of the analysts’
compensation was, is, or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or views expressed in this research report. The analyst responsible for the production of this report
certifies that the views expressed herein reflect his or her accurate personal and technical judgment at the moment of publication. Because the views of analysts may differ, members of the
National Bank Financial Group may have or may in the future issue reports that are inconsistent with this report, or that reach conclusions different from those in this report. To make further inquiry
related to this report, United States residents should contact their NBCFI registered representative.
UK Residents – In respect of the distribution of this report to UK residents, National Bank Financial Inc. has approved the contents (including, where necessary, for the purposes of Section 21(1)
of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000). National Bank Financial Inc. and/or its parent and/or any companies within or affiliates of the National Bank of Canada group and/or any of their
directors, officers and employees may have or may have had interests or long or short positions in, and may at any time make purchases and/or sales as principal or agent, or may act or may
have acted as market maker in the relevant investments or related investments discussed in this report, or may act or have acted as investment and/or commercial banker with respect thereto.
The value of investments can go down as well as up. Past performance will not necessarily be repeated in the future. The investments contained in this report are not available to retail customers.
This report does not constitute or form part of any offer for sale or subscription of or solicitation of any offer to buy or subscribe for the securities described herein nor shall it or any part of it form
the basis of or be relied on in connection with any contract or commitment whatsoever.
This information is only for distribution to Eligible Counterparties and Professional Clients in the United Kingdom within the meaning of the rules of the Financial Conduct Authority. National Bank
Financial Inc. is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and has its registered office at 71 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4HD.
National Bank Financial Inc. is not authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to accept deposits in the United Kingdom.
Copyright – This report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, or further distributed or published or referred to in any manner whatsoever, nor may the information, opinions or conclusions
contained in it be referred to without in each case the prior express written consent of National Bank Financial.