Ken Fisher Explains Why Upcoming Midterm Elections Likely Result in More Political Gridlock

요약 보기

결론: 2022년 중간선거에서 정치적 교착(gridlock)이 강화될 가능성이 크며, 이는 주식시장에 대체로 긍정적이라는 주장. 중간선거 구조: 역사적으로 중간선거에서는 대통령 소속 정당이 의석을 잃는 경우가 대부분이며, 이번에는 10년마다 있는 재선거구획정(redistricting)이 공화당에 유리하게 작용해 민주당의 하원 의석이 두 자릿수 이상 줄어들 가능성이 높다고 봄. 민주당 전략과 역풍: 민주당은 바이든 행정부 초기 2년에 인프라법·재정법안 등을 강하게 밀어붙이는데, 이는 오바마 행정부가 초기 추진력을 잃고 중간선거에서 패배한 전례를 피하려는 것. 그러나 강하게 밀수록 중간선거에서 반발(역풍)이 커져 공화당이 하원을 가져갈 가능성이 높다는 해석. 상원 상황: 대부분의 법안은 60표가 필요하지만 민주당은 50표(부통령 포함)만 보유해 입법이 어렵고, 조 맨친(웨스트버지니아)·커스틴 시내마(애리조나) 등 당내 이견으로 상원 향방은 불투명. 공화당의 하원 탈환 가능성은 높고 상원은 불확실. 투자 함의: 입법 교착은 곧 정책 불확실성·대규모 입법 리스크 감소를 의미하며, 주식은 큰 입법(정부의 부과·재분배)을 싫어하므로 교착 강화는 증시에 좋다는 주장. 바이든 집권 3~4년차에 이 효과가 나타나면 주식시장에 긍정적이라고 결론. 종목·지수·금리·환율에 대한 구체적 가격 전망이나 목표가는 언급되지 않음.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. so i would think that for most of you you are attuned to markets and should kind of understand a lot of this anyway but i am asked often you know will we see more or less gridlock and you can always say that other things equal gridlock is good for stocks good for capital markets in general when we move forward and look at midterm elections will we get increased gridlock or not and the answer is it is possible for it to be not but it's almost always is and this time in particular it is is we will get more gridlock because of several features one of them is the natural midterm effect to on average have the opposition to the president's party in this case the republican party gained seats relative to the president's party in a midterm there's only a couple of exceptions to that in modern history secondarily uh in this instance unlike most midterms we go through a midterm that we get once every decade which is the midterm that parallels redistricting and in this redistricting unlike some others that have had in the past and some others that we'll have in the future this one favors adding seats to the republican party losing seats on the democratic side and then finally the grasp that the democratic party has on the congress as we've told you repetitively as i've written about that it's the least for a new democratic president uh since the 1890s and in the house representatives the democratic party can't afford to lose five seats uh they'll lose i don't know how many but they'll lose double digit number of seats almost assuredly which then gives you formalized gridlock whereas today we only have what's the equivalent of effective gridline i want to go back on a tangent for a moment fact is that one of the reasons that the democratic party has been acting the way they've been acting that you read about a lot in terms of trying to put through the infrastructure bill and the reconciliation bill and all of these things now is because they presume that they will lose seats in the midterm and therefore lose the house and will not be able to do that after the midterms and in fact this is a it's a form of wisdom if you will i don't know if wisdom is the right word but it's a form of conventional wisdom with the democratic party right now that this was a mistake that the obama administration messed up in their first two years in not pushing further and harder and then losing seats in the midterm being dead in the water and being unable to move forward with an agenda in the third and fourth years of president obama's first term so now they want to not make that mistake and they push harder but the more they push hard now the more backlash you get in midterms that's just the way it works the harder they push the more and and they know that'll happen they're in the democratic mind quite content to have that push back if they can get the things through they want through now and so they want to push hard but the reality is that creates more gridlock later because there'll be a bigger response to that in the midterm elections favoring the republicans in the house then getting at a minimum formalized opposition that stops legislation going through the house and senate it's not that easy to get legislation to the senate now as we've seen repeatedly this year because for most things other than pure budget you need 60 votes and they only have 50 and the vice president so it's hard to do that and therefore all of the attention that you've seen in media about senator joe manchin of west virginia and senator kristen cinema of arizona but these inter-party squabbles within the democratic party it's unclear what will happen in the senate the the republicans have a huge likelihood of taking the house they've got some likelihood of taking the senate and some likelihood of not and uh republicans suffer a fair amount of retirements in this session and that's unclear but you really get formalized gridlock simply by the republicans taking the house so you will get increased gridlock other things equal gridlock is always good for stocks because stocks end up hating big legislative action doesn't really matter whether it's republican big legislative action or democratic big legislative action when we legislate somehow some way we take from these to give to those people hate losses a lot more than they love gains and the people that they take from hate it more than the people they give to like it and everybody else that watches fears they're going to get nailed next and the formalization of gridlock creates a perception of inactivity and relative legislative and regulatory calm that as it shifts toward that stocks like so to the extent this is true for the third and fourth years of president biden's term it should be a good thing for the stock market thank you very much