While the U.S. president certainly has great influence, the formal and informal checks and balances built into the government’s structure still matter, and investors shouldn’t let election noise get in the way of sound portfolio management.
August 26, 2024
Kelly Bogdanova Vice President, Portfolio AnalystPortfolio Advisory Group – U.S.
An ongoing, multipart series from RBC Wealth Management is examining various aspects of the U.S. election and the investment implications. In the second article of the series, we argue that the checks and balances built into the federal government’s structure are still relevant at a time when the country is deeply polarised.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have very different views on a host of issues, including those that matter to the economy and stock market and those that don’t.
Harris and Trump both doubled down on their own ideologies with their choices of vice-presidential running mates. While Minnesota Governor Tim Walz on the Democratic side and Ohio Senator JD Vance on the Republican side were each selected to appeal to upper-Midwest swing-state voters and those who live outside of major metropolitan areas, the two differ on many issues but are in step with their respective partners atop the two tickets.
Regardless of the policy differences of the Democratic and Republican tickets, we think the main point for investors to consider is that only a portion of the winning team’s promises are typically implemented, and those are often watered down.
Following are among the key reasons why U.S. presidents don’t have free rein. We think these guardrails apply even more so during this period of deep division within the country.
Call us old-fashioned, we still believe that the checks and balances knitted into the U.S. Constitution by the founders, specifically the separation of powers into three co-equal branches (executive, legislative, and judicial), restrain each branch and any single individual, including the president.
The judiciary serves as an important check on presidential executive orders – directives to enforce laws and manage resources of the executive branch, including federal agencies. Former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump learned this the hard way when their controversial immigration executive orders (both with polar opposite aims) were struck down in federal court, for example.
We view the often tedious and laborious American lawmaking process as positive for financial markets and investment portfolios, on balance.
While lawmaking is functionally shared by the two chambers of Congress, it also involves the president, with the latter’s responsibility to either sign congressional legislation into law or veto it. Presidential administration officials often negotiate key legislative details with Congress, and propose specific provisions.
From our perspective, this system acts as a safety valve for investors during a new president’s term by stalling or diminishing policy changes. Sometimes this delays much-needed reforms, but it also significantly reduces the likelihood a particular president or Congress can take the country in a drastically different direction in one fell swoop.
This especially comes into play when a president does not have the benefit of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (the agreement of 60 of 100 members to move most legislation forward). There is little chance of that occurring this election, according to recent polls, regardless of which party wins the Senate.
There was talk among some senators and political observers during the 2020 election campaign season that in the future the majority party could potentially scuttle or curtail the filibuster rule; the current rule and related procedures represent longstanding agreements among senators that are not constitutionally mandated. We think whichever party would decide to terminate or substantially alter the filibuster rule would do so at its own peril the next time the opposition party would take control of the Senate.
The so-called “administrative state” – officials who serve in federal government executive branch agencies for long stretches of their careers – has more clout than is often given credit.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council could constrain agencies’ power to some degree and tilts authority back to the judicial branch, specifically regarding the interpretation of ambiguous legislation. However, the impact of the landmark ruling won’t fully be determined until many diverse legal cases work their way through the courts over a number of years.
We don’t think there are realistic prospects to achieve a comprehensive revamp of federal agency authority anytime soon, despite the Supreme Court’s so-called Chevron ruling and the Project 2025 initiative.
Outside of the formal administrative state, some former officials have more sway in Washington than is commonly understood. Here we’re referring to former presidential cabinet members and retired heads and deputy heads of federal agencies; retired generals, admirals, other national security officials, and senior diplomats; some former high-ranking House of Representatives and Senate members; and former presidents and vice presidents. They are all part of the informal Washington power structure and decision-making process, like it or not.
Another important and often overlooked guardrail is the collective voice of business interests.
One can argue whether this is good or bad, on balance, for the country and the bulk of its citizens. There are many times we think it’s good, and others when we think it’s bad. Regardless, corporate lobbying efforts are often good for stock prices within key industries.
We’ve yet to witness a single legislative cycle and presidential term when business and other interest groups didn’t achieve at least some of their lobbying objectives, often to the benefit of investors.
In two recent presidential terms, for example, controversial initiatives such as Trump’s tariffs against China and Obama’s health care reforms (the Affordable Care Act) were meaningfully shaped by give-and-take negotiations with the corporate sector. There were times when these issues generated enough market volatility to push the S&P 500 and other major U.S. indexes lower and jolted certain sectors, testing investors’ nerves and resolve. In the end, compromises were struck to the satisfaction of multiple corporate (and thus shareholder) interests.
We would not underestimate the business lobby’s significance nor creativity. From our vantage point, the industries and interest groups listed below are among those that have considerable influence in Washington D.C. They have the ears of many in Congress and key players in each presidential administration, and we think they have the ability to shape legislation and presidential directives going forward.
Source – RBC Wealth Management
In the modern era, gone are the days when one political party dominated control over the presidency and Congress for long periods of time.
“Gridlock” or “divided government” occurs more often than not.
From 1900 to 1952, one-party control of the White House and both chambers of Congress occurred 85 percent of the time. However, since Dwight D. Eisenhower was sworn in as president in 1953, full control of the White House and both chambers of Congress occurred only 36 percent of the time.
And in recent decades, even when one party did have control, it didn’t last long. The five previous presidents – Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden – each governed when the opposition party controlled the House or Senate or both chambers of Congress during part of their presidential terms.
From 1900 to 1952, united one party control occurred 85% of the time and divided two-party control occurred 15% of the time. From 1953 to 2024, united one party control occurred 36% of the time and divided two-party control occurred 64% of the time.
“United one-party control” is the same party controlling the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate. “Divided two-party control” is when one party controls the White House and the other party controls the House or Senate or both.
Source – RBC Wealth Management, Library of Congress, Wikipedia
When we drill down into the divided-control period starting in 1953, there were certain market performance patterns:
But there’s an important caveat about all of this: These categories don’t include a lot of data, so they are not “statistically significant.” One big rally year or one big selloff year can change these averages notably, and quite often significant swings in the market have historically had little to do with political party control or developments in Washington.
Column chart showing historical S&P 500 annual returns under various party control scenarios of the federal government. Returns are as follows. The S&P 500 rose 12.9%, on average, during periods of a Republican sweep (when the party controlled the presidency and both chambers of Congress). It rose 7.3% when the Republicans controlled the presidency and control of the Congress was split between Republicans and Democrats. It also rose 4.9% when Republicans controlled the presidency and the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress. It rose 8.0% during periods of a Democratic sweep. It rose 15.7% when Democrats controlled the presidency and control of Congress was split between Republicans and Democrats. It rose 16.3% when Democrats controlled the presidency and Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress.
Source – RBC Wealth Management, Bloomberg; data through 12/31/23; based on price returns (does not include dividends)
The media, both mainstream and alternative varieties along the ideological spectrum, are adept at elevating the importance of U.S. presidential elections and amplifying policy differences between the two major candidates.
The person occupying the Oval Office certainly has great influence and can help or hinder the country’s economic progress. However, many other factors also determine economic activity and U.S. asset class returns.
We think the U.S. stock market is usually less impacted by presidential achievements and missteps than investors might think.
This is because the formal and informal checks and balances built into the government’s structure typically constrain presidents from fulfilling the full slate of policy goals, and we think this applies even more so during this period of deep polarisation within the country. Historically, the checks and balances have often worked in the stock market’s favour.
Additionally, the business cycle – the natural ebb and flow of economic activity from recovery, to steady growth, to recession, and back – the U.S. Federal Reserve’s monetary policies, and industry innovation tend to impact the stock market far more than election results, as we explained in this report. Developments in slow-moving Washington D.C. can stir up a lot of noise at times, but in our view they don’t make or break America’s behemoth $28 trillion economy.
We advise investors to not allow the din of election coverage, nor the excitement or disappointment with the election outcome, to get in the way of sound portfolio management.
This publication has been issued by Royal Bank of Canada on behalf of certain RBC ® companies that form part of the international network of RBC Wealth Management. You should carefully read any risk warnings or regulatory disclosures in this publication or in any other literature accompanying this publication or transmitted to you by Royal Bank of Canada, its affiliates or subsidiaries.
The information contained in this report has been compiled by Royal Bank of Canada and/or its affiliates from sources believed to be reliable, but no representation or warranty, express or implied is made to its accuracy, completeness or correctness. All opinions and estimates contained in this report are judgments as of the date of this report, are subject to change without notice and are provided in good faith but without legal responsibility. This report is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Past performance is not a guide to future performance, future returns are not guaranteed, and a loss of original capital may occur. Every province in Canada, state in the U.S. and most countries throughout the world have their own laws regulating the types of securities and other investment products which may be offered to their residents, as well as the process for doing so. As a result, any securities discussed in this report may not be eligible for sale in some jurisdictions. This report is not, and under no circumstances should be construed as, a solicitation to act as a securities broker or dealer in any jurisdiction by any person or company that is not legally permitted to carry on the business of a securities broker or dealer in that jurisdiction. Nothing in this report constitutes legal, accounting or tax advice or individually tailored investment advice.
This material is prepared for general circulation to clients, including clients who are affiliates of Royal Bank of Canada, and does not have regard to the particular circumstances or needs of any specific person who may read it. The investments or services contained in this report may not be suitable for you and it is recommended that you consult an independent investment advisor if you are in doubt about the suitability of such investments or services. To the full extent permitted by law neither Royal Bank of Canada nor any of its affiliates, nor any other person, accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from any use of this report or the information contained herein. No matter contained in this document may be reproduced or copied by any means without the prior consent of Royal Bank of Canada.
Clients of United Kingdom companies may be entitled to compensation from the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme if any of these entities cannot meet its obligations. This depends on the type of business and the circumstances of the claim. Most types of investment business are covered for up to a total of £85,000. The Channel Island subsidiary is not covered by the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme; the office of Royal Bank of Canada (Channel Islands) Limited is a participant in the Jersey Bank Depositors Compensation Scheme. The Scheme offers protection for ‘eligible deposits’ up to £50,000 per individual claimant, subject to certain limitations. The maximum total amount of compensation is capped at £100,000,000 in any 5 year period. Full details of the Scheme and banking groups covered are available on the Government of Jersey’s website www.gov.je/dcs or on request.
We want to talk about your financial future.