No. He does not say that. And the Bloomberg article on which this headline is slapped actually explains so, although in the very last sentence, quoting the stock market bull:
“It in fact followed the typical trajectory around close presidential elections, pricing out the uncertainty risk premium rather than pricing in policy changes or stimulus; ditto for the move up in bond yields.”
Binky Chadha, who has been bullish pretty much the whole way up, says that the market is going higher for reasons unrelated to Trump and that the “Trump rally”, which he puts in scare quotes, is just about the election being out of the way.
I don’t share Binky’s enthusiasm for the market, which looks to me to be roughly fairly priced to deliver subpar returns. I have now been saying that a couple years, to my discredit, and Binky has been right in contrast to be flat bullish. Nice call, Binky.
But isn’t it kind of bizarre that people would label as the “Trump” rally an 8-10% leg higher that began AFTER a more than tripling? What came before, the Obama range trade?
IMHO, this issue cuts both ways. A lot of guys who share my view that Trump is the worst thing since … actually I can’t come up with an American precedent … believe that his badness has to take the equity market lower. For example, Nouriel Roubini, who has recently had his name shortened from Nouriel Roubiniwhocalledthefinancialcrisis, is negative on equities because of Trump.
I don’t get why fellow liberals want a bunch of capitalists to confirm for us that we are right about Trump. He can suck huge and equities not go down. Plus, in a lot of scenarios where Trump ends up being negative, there are no people left to lose money in equities. You can’t actually hedge the biggest Trump risks.
Life ain’t fair. The good guys don’t always win.