Pepperstone logo
Pepperstone logo
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • 繁体中文
  • Español
  • Tiếng Việt
  • ไทย
  • Português
  • لغة عربية
  • 交易方式

    概览

    定价

    交易账户

    Pro

    高净值客户

    活跃交易者计划

    交易时间

    维护时间表

  • 平台

    概述

    交易平台

    集成

    交易工具

  • 市场与符号

    概述

    外汇

    股票

    交易所交易基金

    指数

    大宗商品

    货币指数

    指数差价合约股息

    股票差价合约股息

    差价合约远期

  • 分析

    概述

    市场导航

    每日简报

    会见分析师

  • 学习交易

    概述

    交易指南

    网络研讨会

  • 合作伙伴

  • 关于我们

  • 帮助和支持

  • 简体中文
  • English
  • 繁体中文
  • Español
  • Tiếng Việt
  • ไทย
  • Português
  • لغة عربية
  • Launch webtrader

  • 交易方式

  • 平台

  • 市场与符号

  • 分析

  • 学习交易

  • 合作伙伴

  • 关于我们

  • 帮助和支持

分析

US
USD

What if the US presidential election is contested?

Chris Weston
Chris Weston
首席分析师
2020年9月30日
Share
There are a multitude of reasons why the US elections matter to financial markets, but arguably one of the more pressing is the fact that the economy needs more fiscal stimulus if it's to continue to repair and rebuild.

The smooth passage and passing of stimulus therefore plays into the market's risk premium and a ‘strong’ government, that being where one party controls the White House, House and Senate, would obviously help facilitate that.

Markets would see a ‘strong’ government as a positive for market sentiment, rejoicing on the increased potential for deficit spending. The idea being this would lead to increased inflation expectations and ever deeper negative ‘real’ (inflation-adjusted) Treasury yields that would result in a weaker USD, gold appreciation and broadly higher equities.

To get a ‘strong’ government according to my election probability matrix, the most likely path is we see the ‘Blue Wave’ scenario play out. The notion of a ‘Red Redux’ can't be ruled out either. However, it would require the REP’s to get the House, and for that, they would need to win 27 of the 31 ‘toss-up’ seats, which seems unlikely.

I appreciate many will disagree with my anticipated set of outcomes and many feel that a DEM clean sweep would cause a risk-off tone to markets given their focus on higher tax, energy, regulation and an end of shareholder capitalism. However, I think simplistically the DEM’s are more likely to move closer to a loose MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) model – increasing the deficit and leaning on the Fed to indirectly monetise government debt. The fact we’d likely see Fed governor Lael Brainard appointed as the US Treasury Secretary would also be a huge development.

Judging by my aggregated matrix of various betting markets, average polls and political forecasts, the DEM’s have a reasonable chance of the sweep, although the Senate battle looks really tight. Granted, most, when looking at these variables will immediately say “look at 2016” and how wildly inaccurate these metrics proved to be for traders to price risk. However, to dismiss them seems incorrect and statisticians would have recalibrated and reworked their models and will stress the importance of using a margin of error.

(2020 US election probability matrix – consider the data was napped straight after the debate)

A relief rally to emerge, simply on an accepted outcome?

Strong government aside, after watching the first Presidential debate it’s clear that just getting an outcome that is accepted by the losing party would be enough to avoid a meltdown of markets and a strong risk-off tone. Perhaps, at least in the period when the actual outcome is truly known and all the votes are in, any outcome that avoids a contested election and a probable move to take the decision to the Supreme Court should see a relief rally.

Trump’s comments during the section on “election integrity” that the Supreme Court could be a deciding factor seems key and clearly raise the prospect of contested. As was the comment that "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by”, which seemingly resonated in markets and traders are concerned that tensions spill over into the streets and a test of the social fabric of the US.

S&P 500 options term structure

(Source: Bloomberg)

To back up this view we can either look at the initial negative reaction in S&P 500 futures to these comments, or we can look at the options market. Here we see the S&P 500 implied volatility (vol) term structure (above), which maps out the level of implied volatility for future S&P 500 options expiries (white - puts, calls - red), but it’s the put vol that interests.

As one would expect traders have been hedging risk by paying up for S&P 500 put optionality that expires on the election day (green circle). But then implied volatility, or expected downside movement in the S&P 500, becomes even greater and more expensive right through to the peak in January.

One could argue that we can take this as a sign that traders have hedged their equity risk for the scenario where either candidate fails to accept the outcome and are expecting a cage fight and some ugly scenes that infiltrate the market's psyche.

Moving into FX options volatility. If I look at USDJPY 1-month implied vol it sits at 5.97%, which is in no way elevated, but then this expiry doesn’t cover the actual election. If we look forward and at the difference between 2-month and 1-month implied volatility in USDJPY (white), it sits at an all-time high, while the spread in USDCAD (purple) is the highest since 2008. We see a similar dynamic in bond market volatility.

Again, while everyone is looking at the playbook in markets and what it means as to who gets the White House and the make-up of Congress, perhaps the question we should really be asking is "whether we get an actual outcome or whether it is contested". In the near-term, we can see that funds are seemingly hedged through optionality, but the risk of contested could be enough to leave the risk buyers out of the markets. Equity markets could fall just simply on order book dynamics (lack of buyers), with risk FX also facing downside pressure. But, the message from the options market is clear and suggests that perhaps the outcome doesn’t really matter as long as we avoid a contested election. Ready to take a position?


Related articles

Volatility alert: US election fast approaching

Volatility alert: US election fast approaching

US

热门文章

1

QT还是QE?美股反弹还能走多远

2

深陷泥潭!平价或许只是欧元下跌的起点

3

原油势如破竹 今年累计涨幅逼近50%

4

颤抖吧!华尔街!

做好交易准备了吗?

只需少量入金便可随时开始交易。我们简单的申请流程仅需几分钟便可完成申请。

开立真实账户

此处提供的材料并未按照旨在促进投资研究独立性的法律要求准备,因此被视为市场沟通之用途。虽然在传播投资研究之前不受任何禁止交易的限制,但我们不会在将其提供给我们的客户之前寻求利用任何优势。

Pepperstone 并不表示此处提供的材料是准确、最新或完整的,因此不应依赖于此。该信息,无论是否来自第三方,都不应被视为推荐;或买卖要约;或征求购买或出售任何证券、金融产品或工具的要约;或参与任何特定的交易策略。它没有考虑读者的财务状况或投资目标。我们建议此内容的任何读者寻求自己的建议。未经 Pepperstone 批准,不得复制或重新分发此信息。

其他网站

  • The Trade Off
  • 合作伙伴
  • 集团
  • 加入我们

交易方式

  • 定价
  • 交易账户
  • Pro
  • 高净值客户
  • 活跃交易者计划
  • 交易时间

平台

  • 交易平台
  • 交易工具

市场与符号

  • 外汇
  • 股票
  • 交易所交易基金
  • 指数
  • 大宗商品
  • 货币指数
  • 加密货币
  • 差价合约远期

分析

  • 市场导航
  • 每日简报
  • 会见分析师

学习交易

  • 交易指南
  • 视频
  • 在线讲座
Pepperstone logo
support@pepperstone.com
+17866281209
#1 Pineapple House, Old Fort Bay, Nassau, New Providence, The Bahamas
  • 法律文件
  • 隐私政策
  • 网站条款与条件
  • Cookie政策

©2025 Pepperstone Markets Limited |版权所有。公司注册号177174 B |SIAF217

风险警告:差价合约(CFD)是复杂的工具,由于杠杆作用,存在快速亏损的高风险。 81% 的散户投资者在于该提供商进行差价合约交易时账户亏损。您应该考虑自己是否了解差价合约的工作原理,以及是否有承受资金损失的高风险的能力。

您没有基础资产的所有权或权利。过去的表现并不代表未来的表现,税法可能会发生变化。本网站上的信息具有一般性质,并未考虑您或您客户的个人目标,财务状况或需求。请在制定任何交易决定之前阅读我们的RDN和其他法律文件,并确保您完全了解风险。我们鼓励您寻求独立的建议。

Pepperstone Markets Limited位于巴哈马新普罗维登斯市拿骚桑迪波特B201海天巷,并由巴哈马证券委员会(SIA-F217)许可并受其监管。

本网站上的信息以及所提供的产品和服务均不打算分发给任何国家或地区(如果其分发或使用违反当地法律或法规)的任何人。