With the Republican and Democrat nomination processes drawing to a close, campaigning for the November US election will soon begin in earnest. Given the current frontrunners, it certainly promises to be an interesting few months, to say the least. Should investors care? A theory which was once in vogue described the Presidential Cycle, where pre-election promises and fiscal initiatives designed to bolster voter sentiment led to a stronger market in the election year and the preceding one, while the reversal of those initiatives in the following two years led to weaker returns. Certainly there is some intuitive appeal to the theory. It did seem to hold true  for a while, which of course led to its gaining popularity, but as is often the case over a longer period its effectiveness has become less compelling- 2008 was an election year, for example. Whether this is a case of mistaking correlation for causation or a reflection of changes over time in the structure of the US economy is an interesting topic for thought.

Considering the election year specifically, research by Deutsche Bank shows that since 1960, the fourth year of the presidential election cycle has seen the S&P 500 produce a capital return of 6.5%, versus a rise of 7.9% for all years; excluding 2008 the respective figures become 9.1% and 8.8%- a negligible difference. Looking within the year, work by Ned Davis Research shows that stocks tend to struggle during the first half of election years, bottoming on average in May. The timing of a more constructive market environment tends to coincide with emerging clarity as to who the eventual winner will be, regardless of who it is.

Overall, while we do not advocate making investment decisions on any short term or seasonal theme, we think it’s reasonable to expect some pick up in volatility in the run up to the election, especially given the likelihood of some controversial policies being floated. Our base case though is that as in the past once a better picture emerges of who the eventual winner will be, it will be discounted as the outcome and the election will fade as a source of investor uncertainty (no doubt to be replaced by something else!) Of the two most likely candidates, Clinton is generally felt to represent the status quo and as a result be the most ‘market friendly’; Trump on the other hand is a bit more of a loose cannon but the fact of the matter is that any presidential legislation has to make it through Congress; an extended period of gridlock would be the likely result, leaving investors to focus on the broader fundamental picture.