Market Briefing For November 1, 2016

Halloween brought 'small scares'  to markets, as Oil treated its tricky path lower. There were few tricks during the session's evolution, while politicians indeed engaged in treachery to blame opposing sides for every aspect of the FBI-revived e-mail confusion, to the point of not considering what the case would be if 'revelations' (or just investigation) were seen as ongoing during the Election finale, but not reported to the population until after.

US Attorneys already generally opined that there was not a 'Hatch Act' issue (Harry Reid brought that up) while Reid tried to toss it to Trump by mentioning his former manager's business deals in Ukraine/Russia. It's all tawdry politics, at least the Reid stuff, and I don't think too many are inspired by leadership either way in this Election. In any event, I'm not going to expand beyond what you know in the news now, and tried my best to cover some implications recently.

If there's one legacy of this election, perhaps it will be the civics lesson (of what to do and not to do; but also greater awareness of intricacies in governments and governance) and an understanding of forward 'risks'. To that end, the Nation should be thankful.

Peter Thiel, whether one agrees with his politics or not, mentioned one of the major issues really threatening the 'baby boom' generation who became such spenders so as, perhaps, not to emulate their parents who emerged from Depression era frugality and retained it as a conservative fiscal mindset thereafter.

Peter's reminder to the Press that over half our aging population has so little cash reserves, and that most go into retirement in a state actually of 'actuarial bankruptcy' as he termed it, should really be a wake-up call that transcends anyone's views about who should be elected next week.

In-sum: The conflicting viewpoints of this American version of Brexit highlights the need to 'drain the swamp' as some say, but also a realization of just how complex a challenge that would be. One can't just swoop-in and change everything, which is what some fear could happen.

As to trade, which I suspect either candidate will be reviewing no matter which wins, well it's going to be extremely tough toning down or totally reversing globalism without recreating the 1930's is sort of what is being called for. While the American 'deplorable's' demand more jobs at home on one side, the other side of their thinking wants their Walmart products at cheap prices, and on the surface don't think deep enough to realize they'd have to pay for that achievement out of money it's going to cost to get everybody raises and start making most things here again.

Washington would be telling consumers (again actuarially broke) that they're not talking 20% price increases, but about things doubling or tripling like electronics gizmos, and all computers except new MACs (where the price went up 20-40% depending on configuration for new MacBook Pros, and that's without any tariffs or impositions on China).

Now, the big error here is politicians who 'think' this is isolationism. Too late for that; everything is seriously interdependent. However, if there's a move to make draconian shifts too fast, it would backfire. I don't believe Trump ever said he would; he talks of 'negotiating better deals', not any sandbagging of trade partners, much less allies. And Clinton clearly has to now be aware (she already balked at trade policies) Obama's tactics in trade are not the answer, and that the US must seriously face this. In a sense this is part of what I mean about a positive aspect (got to find at least one) of the campaign. People finally sort of know what Washington spent so many years shoving under the rug.

Conclusion The real world can't change on a time, but over time. So at least seeing that reality is a good first step to righting our National ship. Neither Clinton nor Trump are going to be mouthing marching orders to national leaders around the globe (after Election), and won't come off as obnoxious like either the Philippine or Venezuelan leaders. Good taste of how not to run a country (both of them).