Charlie Jamieson, Chief Investment Officer

Uncertainty will reign after the re-election of Donald Trump and the Republican Red sweep on Capitol Hill, giving the Grand Old Party (GOP) a clear mandate for significant change.

After a campaign dominated by personal insults and grubby fearmongering, actual hard policy detail is somewhat scant. Initially, markets have responded by backing Trump and team GOP, with risk assets rallying, thrilled with an outlook of perceived positive growth policies centred around tax cuts, deregulation and less focus on environmental issues. However, markets must wait for more detail to truly release the animal spirits, as some touted Trump policies may threaten such growth outcomes by taking momentum out of the economy.

Will the bark of Trumpian policy be equal to the bite, or does the “art of the deal” translate into vocal threats without the downside of chosen short-term pain? The US budgetary outlook will provide guardrails to these expectations.

2024 has been a year of toppling sitting governments, as voters remain angry in a post-Covid world with extreme cost-of-living pressures. Opposition parties the world over are being swept into power, only to find that governance in the aftermath of such an environment is quite difficult: it is far easier to criticise from the opposition benches than solve the complex problems in government.

While the GOP has a clear voter mandate to lift living standards and restore low and stable inflation, some of the publicly suggested policy combinations threaten to deliver the opposite outcomes if enacted. Such moves could take the gloss off the initial market enthusiasm enjoyed since the election announcement.

Trump has touted an across-the-board 10 per cent import tariff as a tool to drive change in trade policies, attempting to level the playing field by making US products more competitive against lower-cost producers, while also encouraging US-based investment. He has also targeted specific countries, such as China, proposing tariffs as high as 60 per cent.

While this would help improve the US fiscal position by generating revenue from tariff taxes on imported goods, it effectively acts as a direct tax on American consumers, who would face higher prices on everyday items due to increased import costs. This would raise the general price level, stimulating inflation at a time when the Federal Reserve is lowering interest rates from emergency settings used to combat the last bout of Covid-induced inflation shocks.

It would likely be very politically unpopular and, despite the sweeping mandate just received, the midterm elections of 2026 are always in the back of political minds.

Trump has similarly proposed cutting up to $US2 trillion in deficit spending by appointing Elon Musk as a change agent to drive efficiency across federal government operations. While reducing waste is beneficial in the long term, the US economy is already reliant on significant government spending to bolster its somewhat slight growth profile―– all things considered―– given the already massive intervention of the government in the economy.

The deficit spend is simply unprecedented for non-war times, running at 6-7 per cent of GDP under the Biden administration. Such massive government spending is only generating a tepid 2.8 per cent GDP growth, all while the economy experiences significant positive tailwinds from immigration.

Removing such a large amount of spending from the economy would have significant growth implications if not replaced by other positive accretive outcomes such as a productivity enhancement. In these delicate political times, choosing such a deacceleration of economic activity seems an unlikely political choice.

Delicate choices and policy combinations need to be made by the Trump administration as tax cuts and spending for growth require financing inside a US budget set up that is already strained after large Covid spending programs.

Bond markets are on watch around the sustainability of the US fiscal position, now exceeding $US35 trillion and climbing (120 per cent of GDP), amid concerns that the budget has little room to provide a counter-cyclical buffer should the economy experience any type of recessionary outcomes.

Since the election, yields have stabilised, supported by ongoing interest rate cuts from central banks such as Sweden’s Riksbank, the Bank of England, and the Federal Reserve.

Markets remain cautious, noting the potential risks of politically driven policies that lack economic foresight – highlighted by the swift removal of British Prime Minister Liz Truss after bond markets reacted sharply to her fiscal plans.

Until US policy plans are laid out in full, we maintain a preference for Australian and European fixed income assets, which offer stronger fiscal conservatism and higher credit quality. Overall, this environment underscores the importance of diversification, careful monitoring of fiscal policy announcements, and considering exposure to regions with more stable economic policies.