Some presidential campaigns have been nastier than others. But during the particularly ugly ones we invariably hear talk that this is the worst yet, and how we’re moving closer to the final hour of our democracy.
As nasty and personal as the Trump-versus-Clinton battle has become, it’s not unprecedented. In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes went to bed election night thinking he’d lost that year’s presidential race. All during the campaign Hayes’s opponents had showered him with accusations, characterizing him as corrupt, a drunk and a syphilitic. Their man? The once-cozy-with-Tammany Hall, but now born-again “reformer” Samuel Tilden, whom Hayes’s side portrayed as a pawn of the powerful railroad magnates.
Even further back, during the 1800 presidential campaign, Thomas Jefferson hired a writer to hurl accusations at his opponent, John Adams. Among other attacks, he portrayed Adams as having a “hideous hermaphroditical character.”
Tiger Legatus Master Fund was up 0.1% net for the second quarter, compared to the MSCI World Index's 7.9% return and the S&P 500's 8.5% gain. For the first half of the year, Tiger Legatus is up 9%, while the MSCI World Index has gained 13.3%, and the S&P has returned 15.3%. Q2 2021 hedge Read More
So when Donald Trump refers to Clinton as “a mean, nasty enabler,” he’s not at all departing from our hallowed American traditions. But because he seems to say whatever’s on his mind, instead of what’s scripted or planned, Trump comes off in many ways as a loose cannon, projecting a public image of unpredictability. It’s great for the media, and for galvanizing supporters, but it’s making markets just a little bit edgy.
Financial analysts willing to take Trump at his word for several of his rare consistent pronouncements, including what MarketWatch terms his “pledge to tear up trade agreements and a rise in overall uncertainty,” point to the anxiety he’ll likely engender in the domestic economy. In a July 23 article Georgette Boele, precious metals and currency analyst for ABN Amro suggests the Republican nominee’s policies “will be inward looking and will weaken the fundamentals of the U.S. economy.”
Thus if Trump wins, and sticks to his guns, his presidency will be bullish for gold, concludes Boele. Weak U.S. growth will drive gold toward $1,850 an ounce – a forty percent spike from its current (as of this writing) level of $1,321.
To support her thesis, Boele offers data on gold’s performance during previous administrations dating back to Gerald Ford. She notes “[a] deterioration of U.S. real yields and haven demand amid geopolitical shocks have allowed gold to rebound this year.”
It’s only natural to wonder how gold might perform if the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, clinches the November election. Still bullish on the yellow metal, Boele forecasts a more modest rise to around $1,600 an ounce.
She feels gold will rise in this case because inflation will outpace growth. She also foresees the probability of negative interest rates (a previously unheard-of, but now very real possibility) and a downward trend for the U.S. dollar. All this will occur presumably because a Clinton administration would most likely be more permissive with entitlements and deficit spending.
We have clear challenges ahead no matter what happens. I can only suggest you meet them by voting for the candidate you feel will do the best job for our country, first being certain you safeguard your nest egg with the protection of physical gold. It’s a hard asset that will add value and strength to your portfolio no matter what happens to markets and the U.S. dollar.
Because no matter who wins this election, gold will prevail.