Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 192

Post-Trump, have markets really changed much?

Following the election of Donald Trump, instead of the large correction that many experts predicted, developed equity markets and commodities have staged a strong rally. The market hopes the new President’s economic policies will be the panacea to the low-growth world we have been muddling through in the wake of the GFC. Most economists and forecasters are now confidently lifting their economic growth expectations.

Investors Mutual (IML) will readily admit that we cannot with any great accuracy forecast the performance of the economy over the next year or two. While many economists like to make confident predictions about the future, we would rather stick to our own investment philosophy of identifying undervalued quality companies that can grow their earnings and dividends in the years ahead.


Trump's pro-growth rhetoric and proposed stimulatory policies have led to predictions of higher inflation in the US, with the implication of further US interest rate increases through 2017. Federal Reserve officials have already readied the markets to expect three interest rate increases throughout 2017.

The truth is that Trump's reflation rally could run out of steam before it begins, with the impact that higher borrowing costs courtesy of higher bond yields could weigh on the US economic recovery. The US 10-year bond yield has already moved from its all-time low of 1.4% in July 2016 to around 2.5% as of December 2016, with significant impacts on the affordability of new houses for borrowers in the US.

The rise in US interest rates has also sent the US dollar to its strongest level in over 13 years against its major trading partners. The strength in the US dollar is another obstacle that Trump must overcome as he looks to rebalance the economy in favour of US manufacturing and US exports. The strong rhetoric from the White House towards supposed ‘currency manipulators’, namely China and Germany, is an attempt to talk down the US dollar.

Trump's much anticipated growth policies

Now in its eighth year of expansion since the GFC, the US economic recovery is mature and is already running at close to full capacity in certain areas. Removing regulatory burdens, as proposed by the new President, will be favourable for businesses, but extra spending on areas such as infrastructure could put further pressure on labour markets and the supply of materials.

Trump's team has not placed much emphasis on infrastructure spending since the election and little in substance has been provided to date. The new President must also get his policies through Congress. Although dominated by Republicans, many of these are unwilling to watch the US deficit balloon any further and they may well demand spending cuts to match any such spending initiatives. Trump’s answer to this is that stronger levels of economic growth will provide the plank to pay for the additional stimulus. This is political rhetoric at its best in our view.

Trump's proposed tax cuts for corporate America, while encouraging on the surface, also need to translate into higher investment spending by companies to boost economic growth. In the last few years, rather than build new plants, many US companies have used the low interest rate environment to focus on capital management via share buybacks, which have soared to record levels. Share buybacks may be good for companies’ earnings per share (EPS) and help increase the value of CEOs’ stock options, but they do not create many new jobs except possibly at investment banks and legal firms!

The low interest rate environment has not meaningfully boosted US investment. Instead, it has boosted leverage as companies have opted for financial engineering. Trump’s mooted corporate tax cuts have the potential to increase company earnings by up to 10-15%, but unless corporate behaviour changes, real economic growth will not jump as high as many are predicting.

Trump's intention of raising taxes on foreign-sourced production and effectively favouring domestic US production may lift US output, but it will do so via the substitution of overseas manufacturing. Consequently, global growth might be little changed as companies shift production in response to changing tax regimes rather than produce more overall.

Australia and China

The health of the Chinese economy remains crucial to the Australian economy. As witnessed at the beginning of 2016, commodity prices, including our most significant exports, coal and iron ore, sold off heavily on concerns of a hard landing in China. Chinese policy makers responded by loosening bank lending requirements and increasing infrastructure spending that helped double the price of iron ore and coal through the remainder of 2016.

The performance of Australia’s resource sector remains heavily dependent on the strength in demand from China. The price rally of 2016 helped propel Australia’s income and will provide some respite to the Federal Government’s growing Budget Deficit, which is coming under closer scrutiny by the ratings agencies.

Positioning in a low growth environment

At IML, we are conditioned to the mindset of investing without overreliance on strong world growth. Our style has always focussed on the quality and value of the underlying companies we own. With so many potential uncertainties still facing the global economy, we favour companies that can grow from their own initiatives rather than relying on higher GDP growth. These initiatives include market share gains, cost outs, restructuring, contracted growth and accretive bolt on acquisitions, where management has the capability to execute on their strategies effectively and where we are confident earnings can grow without relying on much help from the economy.


Anton Tagliaferro is Investment Director and Hugh Giddy is a Senior Portfolio Manager and Head of Investment Research at Investors Mutual Limited. This article contains general information only and does not consider an individual’s own circumstances.


Jerome Lander
March 04, 2017

Post trump, markets have indeed changed - we now may have entered a final concentrated blow-off top phase after a long bull market, where rhetoric and financial engineering can seemingly make everything ok and truly naive investing is well-rewarded, at least for a while! This is funny season at its best. How long will it last for is the question...

If the market does have a big sell-off, then long only active equity management might not provide much protection, although granted it can potentially do a lot better than a decimated index!

The more important point is portfolio construction and ensuring the overall portfolio is resilient and outcome orientated, and not simply market dependent - a portfolio like this is in the tiny minority right now. Being in that tiny minority is something truly worth considering!

Geoff Scott
March 02, 2017

Only recently commenced receiving Cuffelinks n/letter and finally decided to invest in Third Link. Have read many of the articles and extremely pleased with variety and content.

Graham Hand
March 03, 2017

Hi Geoff, appreciate the kind feedback. We will soon publish our annual Reader Survey which helps us determine the content to select, and hope you fill it in. Cheers

John O'Connell
March 02, 2017

"When a management team with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact" Warren Buffet

translated: the macro backdrop matters.

Yes, macro is not the be all and end all, but to trivialise it as virtually irrelevant is equally as derelict. Macro and micro both matter to selecting investments.

ps I am not trying to defend current valuations (they seem to be getting on the absurd side), and not trying to defend a President that is more a white shoe salesman trading on the cache of a well respected office - it may all end in tears.

But what I am saying is company specific fundamentals need to be calibrated against the backdrop of the industry and economic macro drivers.

In your example, it is easier to take market share gains when the industry/economy is growing sufficiently to expand the pie (more incremental revenue to win)


Leave a Comment:



Six months of Trump, thanks, but what about impeachment?


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.


RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.


4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.


Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.


Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.


Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.