What to Expect, When Expecting a Trump Presidency – How to Invest

Since the results of the 2016 United States presidential election rolled in on Tuesday, November 8th there has been plenty of speculation regarding what a Trump Presidency will mean for the United States. Issues regarding foreign policy, the environment, women’s rights, healthcare and so on were widely debated and contentious topics leading up to the election. One issue in particular – the US economy — is a burning question that’s left many Americans wondering who will benefit from President-Elect Trump’s economic plan.

Brexit and the subsequent economic implications including the devaluation of the British pound seemed almost like a harbinger or warning call of what the Armageddon-like results of 2016 would be like if Donald Trump won the election. In the days following the November 8th result the stock market responded in a way that left many economists, political pundits and speculators curious to say the least. The early stock market response was overly positive with the DOW, Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500 spiking up considerably in the morning after the election and continuing to show positive trends. But what exactly elicited such a positive response from the markets, which all seemed to signal economic victory?

Some experts believe that it may have to do with the Trump administrations promise to cut regulations, a vow to dismantle the Dodd-Frank financial reform, and the corporate tax rate, a move that would benefit the private sector tremendously. The “Trump-ed up” trickle down economics that Hillary oh so cleverly coined during the debates, refers to his plans to cut corporate taxes, from a top rate of 35 percent down to 15 percent; in addition, cutting taxes on America’s wealthiest from 40 to now 33 percent for top rates.

Others believe that the results motivated investors to pour money into major construction and engineering stocks in anticipation of a Trump stimulus package for America’s infrastructure that would include major improvements to roads, bridges, telecommunication, public transportation, “world-class” airports, security and utilities while simultaneously creating new jobs and higher wages.

“For the U.S. domestic economy, the obvious winners are infrastructure, with a focus on roads, bridges, and airports,” said Mark Burgess, global head of equities at fund company Columbia Threadneedle Investments (Dieterich).

Burgess’s reasoning would explain why the DOW, Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500 companies dealing primarily with industrial materials and services have experienced continued growth in stock values since November.

 

“A Goldman Sachs report cautioned that the new U.S. infrastructure spending — which Trump has put at from $500 billion to $1 trillion — would not begin until the third quarter of 2017. Moreover, the price tag is a combination of private and public money, so the scope of Trump’s plan depends on how he counts,” (Mufson).

With all this in mind the question remains, where should we invest? In order to answer this question, it is important to first take a look at the President-Elect’s economic plan. While Trump’s plan could change at the drop of a hat as soon as he enters the Oval, analyzing his current proposal is one of the first steps prior to making investments.

Trump’s vision includes the creation of a dynamic booming economy with 25 million new jobs over the next decade. Trump believes that under his presidency there will be a 3.5 percent growth per year on average. Creating all of these new jobs will result from the Trump energy policy, which he plans to “unleash” as soon as he takes office. The energy policy main objective is to make the US entirely energy independent and in doing so create millions of new jobs and protecting clean and clean water. One of the main problems that has been cited with this plan though is that Trump wants to focus all of this energy plan’s efforts on coal, oil, and natural gasses – all of which contribute to pollution and directly contradict the Paris Climate change agreement. Shifting the focus away from environmental protections and issues could mean an overall increase in drilling everywhere, especially Federal land holdings:

“Lifting unnecessary restrictions on all sources of American energy (such as coal and onshore and offshore oil and gas) will (a) increase GDP by more than $100 billion annually, add over 500,000 new jobs annually, and increase annual wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years; (b) increase federal, state, and local tax revenues by almost $6 trillion over 4 decades; and (c) increase total economic activity by more than $20 trillion over the next 40 years,” (www.donaldjtrump.com).

The energy policy could mean big returns on energy investments. The big American oil companies, Exxon Mobil (XOM) and Chevron (CVX), will undoubtedly benefit from a pro-oil and natural gas administration. Companies dealing with energy infrastructure should also be given a closer look. Making federal land readily available and investing less in alternative clean energy would drastically support big oil in general. The appointment of Scott Pruitt, former Oklahoma attorney general, to President-elect Trump’s to run the Environmental Protection Agency is a clear signal that the Trump administration plans to shift energy policy’s attention away from clean and renewable energy. Mr. Pruitt, a Republican, is already noted as being a climate change denialist. During his time as Oklahoma’s attorney general, he fought vehemently against President Obama’s climate change policies battling on behalf of the coal industry. In fact, as Oklahoma’s top prosecutor Pruitt went so far as to sue the EPA. The appointment, while bleak does spell out good news for the fossil fuels industry and those who wish to invest their assets in the same companies that gave Pruitt under the counter campaign contributions.

The energy policy makes a stipulation that under a Trump administration the President-Elect would like to see the US become the world’s leader in energy technologies including nuclear power.   A company like BWX Technologies (BWXT), which specializes in energy infrastructure –more specifically nuclear energy technology – with a large government, services and facilities management division could see a rise in stock earnings over the next few years. The day of the election BWX Technologies stock traded at 36.63 before spiking up the next day to 39.54, with continued growth since the election and a 5-year record high on November, 25th at 40.52.

“Analysts at Cantor Fitzgerald recently predicted that there would be a “violent increase” in uranium prices at some point, theorizing that as much as 80 percent of the uranium market might be uncovered in terms of supply by 2025, and that demand would by then outstrip supply,” (Stafford).

Beyond the infrastructure and energy sectors, there are several top industries that will be impacted by the upcoming Presidential administration. Defense  will be huge, YUGE! Trump has already indicated that he wishes to expand the size of the Army and Marine Corps dramatically, build new vessels for the Navy and jets for the Air Force, all while modernizing the US’s nuclear arsenal. Lockhead Martin (LMT), Raytheon (RTN), General Dynamics (GD), and BAE Systems (BA), are just a few of the big name defense stocks that have enjoyed growth in investments following last month’s presidential election. Trump’s rhetoric of slashing corporate taxes while beefing up America’s military was the perfect concoction for what resulted with investments in the defense sector.

“‘Trump’s win is good news for the defense industry, especially when coupled with Republican majorities in the House and Senate,” said Loren Thompson, a defense consultant who advises many of the nation’s top-tier contractors,’” (Heath).

Defense shares have continued to hold on to steady numbers and still offer new buying opportunities for interested investors. Lockheed Martin alone, experienced a 20-point stock jump following the election results and — as of December 7th — continues to hold on to a solid 266.38 valuation (Carson). Trump’s eagerness to increase the size and capacity of the military will directly benefit defense contractors like BAE Systems and General Dynamics, as well as helicopter and plane manufactures like Boeing.

“Eaglen acknowledged that “‘the major defense contractors are part of the establishment he’s railing against.’” But she said Trump does not really have a choice but to stick with them. “‘If he wants to show results, he’s got to live with the contractors he has,” she said. “‘You have to go with the production lines you have open,’” (Heath).


A conservative estimate of Trump’s promised budget has been projected at an additional $55 billion in defense spending. A question that remains though is where exactly Trump plans to find the money to pay his steep tab.

Speculative investments on defense contractors have run rampant in the past month. One company that drew attention, in particular, was Magal Security System (MAGS), the company responsible for building the infamous high-tech fences and walls along Israel’s volatile border. Magal Security System was also responsible for the erection of a massive separation barrier along the West Bank, which includes cameras, sensors, and robotic technology. The supposed wall that Trump plans to build across the US-Mexico 1,933 mile long border likely has something to do with Magal Security System’s uptick in stock prices. The company’s shares were up 24 percent from its 4.45 closing price on Election Day.

“‘We believe that the U.S. government is going to increase its security budgets in the upcoming years and definitely we look forward to take part in it,’” the company’s chief executive, Saar Koursh,” (Scharf).

If your consciousness has not already felt besieged by the possibly lucrative albeit morally ambivalent ways in which you can see investment returns over the next 4 — hopefully 2 — years than prepare yourself for the next industry that might be headed for an upswing. Private prisons.

It was only two months ago that the Justice Department announced a plan to abolish the use of private facilities for its federal inmates. The decision led to a correlated stock dip in corrections companies – an arguably rightly so.

Unfortunately, Trump’s win has revived the stock earnings of America’s controversial industry. While the President-elect has yet to mention any specific plans of private prisons during his presidency his Nixon-esque “Law-and-Order” candidate rhetoric has left many people believing that he will ensure and protect these private facilities. Investors are speculating heavily that the administration will require the private prison infrastructure to carry out its “feasible” plan fro a mass-scale deportation plan.
Two of the largest private prison companies – CoreCivic (CXW) and the Geo Group (GEO) – saw spikes in their stocks following the election results (Harlan).

Ultimately – though – our hot Cheeto President-Elect has a hot temper and trigger finger when it comes to shooting out tweets and absurd statements that have the power to increase and decrease the value of stocks in a matter of seconds. Just yesterday morning, Trump tweeted out:

“Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!”

The problem with his tweet? Other than falsely overestimating the budget of the Air Force One replacement program by roughly $2.0 billion is the impact his words had on Boeing stock. The Boeing stock took a momentary nosedive before recovering by the closing bell. The event is just one example of how the reckless and ill-informed words of America’s soon to be leader could have dire impacts on the US economy and stock market.

 

 

 

 

 
Sources:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/12/07/Nuclear-Power-Could-Boom-Under-President-Trump

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/fact-sheet-donald-j.-trumps-pro-growth-economic-policy-will-create-25-milli

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa/?utm_term=.ac7913795562

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/mr-business-goes-to-washington-now-what/2016/11/12/8c7f7846-a6e2-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html?utm_term=.801e360cc433

http://www.investors.com/research/ibd-industry-themes/5-defense-stocks-in-or-near-buy-zones-after-trump-offensive/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/11/24/trumps-mexican-wall-boon-israeli-security-company/94377438/

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/how-to-invest-during-the-trump-presidency-cm708605

 

No Fun League: How the NFL can Fight Declining Ratings

For decades, the National Football League (NFL) has dominated not only professional sports television, but the entire field of network programming. During the 2015 season, the NFL owned all of the top 25 programs on television after years of climbing ratings and brought in $15 billion in revenue (The Ringer). However, the 2016 season has been a different story. Through Week Six, overall NFL ratings were down 11%, causing the national media to question if the NFL was beginning a permanent decline. Ratings have slightly rebounded, but the NFL has been exposed as a vulnerable property, something that was once unthinkable. The decline in NFL ratings can be attributed to a combination of competition from other entertainment sources, oversaturation of games and a lower quality product, issues it will have to resolve to stay relevant.

nfl-ratings-usa-today

2016 has been a rough year for the NFL because it has faced unprecedented competition for viewers from the historic presidential election and Major League Baseball (MLB) playoffs.  NFL ratings have declined in the past due to the presidential election, with declines of -10% in 2000 and -2% in 2008 (Washington Post). However, declines were as high as -15% during the 2016 election (Washington Post). This can possibly be written off as a product of the media circus surrounding this election, but is nonetheless the highest decrease in recent history. After the election, games did slightly rebound, with the Cowboys-Steelers prime time game finishing +2% and the Patriots-Seahawks prime time game finishing +16% (Forbes). Still, the regional games on Fox finished -19% while the CBS regional games were down -7% (Forbes). The election is likely partially responsible for the decline in overall ratings, but is not the sole culprit.

Perhaps more concerning was the success of the MLB against the NFL. While football ratings languished, baseball ratings skyrocketed. This culminated in the October 30th Chicago Cubs-Cleveland Indians World Series matchup having more viewers than the Dallas Cowboys-Philadelphia Eagles Sunday Night broadcast. This is only the third time the MLB beat the NFL since they began going head-to-head in 2010 (USA Today). The World Series even drew 40.045 million viewers for the final game, more viewers than any NFL game since Super Bowl 50 (Rum Bunter). Like the election, this unlikely success for baseball might be due to the exciting narrative of the Cubs snapping their 108 year drought against the similarly long-suffering Indians. Ultimately, baseball beat football for the first time in the 2010’s and the NFL proved it was not matchup-proof.

Another simple economic explanation for the NFL is the supply for the product has increased, causing demand to decrease. For much of its history, NFL games were on Sunday afternoons with one Sunday night game and one Monday night game. Now, the NFL airs 15 games per season on Thursday nights along with the Sunday and Monday night games, which are sometimes doubleheaders (The Ringer). The NFL has also added 9:30 a.m. EST games in London to build an international audience (The Ringer). There are also multi-game packages geared towards fantasy football players such as DIRECTV Sunday Ticket and streaming options on WatchESPN and Twitter. Others simply follow games at bars or via scoring or fantasy apps on their phone.

The NFL has created a problem for itself by making its product too widely available. By increasing its supply of games, it is making it harder for viewers to devote time to games. Viewers used to be able to watch their team’s Sunday afternoon game interspersed with highlights from other games, leaving time to watch the prime time matchups. Committing to a Thursday night game, three Sunday games and a Monday night game is a lot of time for a person to spend watching television. It doesn’t help that games run for three hours, much of which is advertising. Encouraging people to spend more time watching football does not reflect trends in television viewership. Since 2010, the time Americans spend watching TV has dropped 11 percent (Washington Post). For social media-obsessed people under 24, TV time has plunged more than 40 percent (Washington Post). As commercial-free streaming options such as Netflix and HBOGo continue to grow, less people will want to watch three hours of ad-heavy football. Time is scarce, and people are choosing to spend less of their time watching television. The NFL is fighting this trend by making their product less of an event and demand is decreasing as a result.

The oversaturation issue is further amplified by the concern that the quality of product the NFL is pushing has declined. Thursday night games are frequently criticized as less entertaining than Sunday and Monday games. Teams have only four days to create a game plan and recover from injuries, resulting in sloppy games that often end in blowouts. The average margin of victory for 2016 Thursday night games is over two touchdowns while the Vegas underdog team has only won twice (Sports Illustrated). This is not just a Thursday night issue, competition is down overall. Through Week 12, Vegas underdogs have only won 39% of the time (Sports Illustrated).

Not only are games more predictable, there is a growing concern that officials are making them more unwatchable through excessive penalties and fines. Many of these penalties have been unsportsmanlike conduct flags thrown for rather innocent touchdown celebrations by superstars such as Antonio Brown and Odell Beckham Jr. Viewers have taken notice, including Monday Night Football announcer Sean McDonough:

“If we’re looking for reasons why TV ratings for the NFL are down all over the place, this doesn’t help. The way this game has been officiated is not something anybody wants to watch.” (The Ringer)

flag

While individual games struggle, larger NFL narratives that drove the league’s entertainment value for years are also disappearing. For much of the last ten years, the central battle in the NFL has been between its two top quarterbacks: Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. Manning is now retired, while Brady was suspended for the first four games of 2016 and is likely a few years from retirement. Other star players such as Marshawn Lynch and Calvin Johnson have retired over fear of lasting injury from football. There is no Cubs-Indians narrative to excite fans in sight for the NFL. It is difficult to draw people to prime time games without marketable stars.

nfl-are-you-watching-less

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The NFL’s suspension policy has also been a major public relations issue for the league. The league has faced criticism for giving players found guilty of domestic violence light suspensions, such as Ray Rice (two games) and Josh Brown (one game). Meanwhile, Tom Brady got four games for possibly helping deflate footballs and star running back Le’Veon Bell got three games for skipping a marijuana test. This failure to punish criminal issues while using a heavy hand on comparatively trivial ones is a huge point of contention for many fans, especially women. The league’s handling of players protesting social issues by refusing to stand for the national anthem, led by former starting 49’ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, has also alienated some fans. According to an October Rasmussen Poll, 32% of respondents said they were less likely to watch a game because of Kaepernick (Sports Illustrated). The NFL has not done a good job of consistently disciplining its players for issues fans deem important, making its stars less marketable.

The NFL needs to take multiple steps to address its slumping viewership. League executives should begin by firing Commissioner Roger Goodell. While Goodell has overseen successful years and has gone on record saying he wants to grow the league to $25 billion in revenue by 2027, he has made many poor decisions (The Ringer). Goodell oversaw the expansion of the unpopular Thursday night games and has failed to address the domestic violence and concussion issues while encouraging punishments for touchdown dances. He inherited a wildly successful organization and has not been able to effectively grow it or tackle controversies. Like when a corporation suffers a scandal and fires its CEO, a change in leadership would show the public that the NFL has heard its criticism and is willing to head in a new direction.

roger-goodell-012615-getty-ftr-usjpg_2injpggbta2k17v2aq1e6hgxq

That new direction should tackle two of the largest issues that the NFL faces and has control over: decreased quality of play and oversaturation. The NFL should begin with eliminating Thursday night games. This will attract more viewers to Sunday games as all but two teams will be playing on one day. Placing most games on Sunday will also make it easier to show marquee matchups in prime time. Almost every team would plan on playing the same day and there would be more daytime slots available to help tweak the schedule in favor of a good Sunday night game. The NFL can combine this with looser rules on penalties, allowing fans to watch a more uninterrupted, clean product. This will help make football what it is meant to be: an entertaining experience. Cleveland Browns left tackle Joe Thomas summarized the best approach for the NFL, saying, “I think [officials] would be wise to remember that the NFL is about entertaining — first and foremost — and they do not want to do things that take fun and excitement out of the game.” (Baltimore Sun)

The NFL can improve the viewer experience while avoiding an impending revenue crisis by focusing on streaming. Streaming services are quickly becoming the norm as more people stop buying expensive cable packages. The NFL’s consistent ratings dominance has been the reason cable companies stay relevant, but it is now beginning to show chinks in its armor. Major cable companies and carriers have committed a total of $50 billion to the NFL through the early 2020’s (The Atlantic). They are willing to spend such large amounts money on the NFL because advertisers are willing to pay top dollar ($5 million for a 2016 Super Bowl ad) for the large, consistent audiences the NFL promises (CNN Money). The NFL may soon lose these audiences if they do not adapt to the changing television landscape, causing advertisers to seek less expensive alternatives such as hockey, baseball and eSports.

When its cable contracts expire, the NFL should create a comprehensive streaming package, either separately or through an established provider such as Netflix. One of the bright spots in the NFL’s recent history is the creation of Sunday Ticket, a package that grants fans access to all NFL games. The well-received package is perfect for fans who want to see highlights from many games, such as fantasy football players, due to its RedZone component that constantly switches between highlights from current games. It also keeps fans who want to watch one game at once happy. This model could easily be adapted to a subscription streaming service and allow the NFL to consolidate its viewership by placing all games in one place rather than across multiple media outlets on multiple days. The NFL has already had success with the WatchESPN streaming app, which grew by 73% in 2015 (Washington Post). This would help the NFL become less reliant on ad revenue as fans are directly paying for the games, not a cable package that offers them.

The NFL is not going to start losing money any time soon, but has been notified by its fans thats it is not infallible. Television habits are changing, and the NFL is not immune, especially if it fails to address concerns about its product. The NFL must take steps to adapt to the changing television landscape before its revenue begins to fall as its ratings have.

Word Count: 1917

Works Cited:

http://www.si.com/nfl/photo/2016/10/20/nfl-television-ratings-decline-causes

http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/11/29/nfl-thursday-night-football-future-schedule-ratings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/nfl-ratings-plunge-could-spell-doom-for-traditional-tv/2016/10/14/a7a23dc2-915f-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?utm_term=.6ec7aac0843e

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/nfl-ratings-just-fell-off-a-cliff-why/503666/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2016/11/15/heres-the-real-reasons-why-nfl-tv-ratings-will-continue-downward/#12006b957f18

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/bs-sp-ravens-tv-1116-20161115-story.html

https://theringer.com/nfl-tv-ratings-crisis-81fd9dbd53a#.8k7mkxgvv

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/04/nfl-tv-ratings-down-denver-post-survey/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/11/media/nfl-ratings-roger-goodell/

The World Series beat Sunday night NFL in TV ratings and that doesn't actually mean much