Goldman Sachs: Trump presidency will benefit stocks in nearly every sector

“After years of slowing earnings growth and little in the way of excitement for many Wall Street analysts, many are now hopeful that President-elect Donald Trump will finally make things interesting,” Julie Verhage reports for Bloomberg. “When collating data for the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Analyst Index — a proprietary measure of growth across different sectors of the S&P 500 — the firm included a question this month on what the election of Donald Trump will mean for the industries covered by those surveyed. Turns out, they are rather optimistic. ”

“‘This month, we asked analysts to comment on how the results of the U.S. election will affect companies in their respective sectors,’ the team led by Avisha Thakkar writes in the new note. ‘While their responses suggest that there is still uncertainty about the sector-level impact, the majority of sectors are anticipating favorable effects,’ they say, adding that expectations of lower tax rates and economic stimulus are among key reasons for the favorable outlook,” Verhage reports. “Goldman certainly isn’t the first to hail the potential benefits of a Trump presidency. Dubravko Lakos-Bujas and Marko Kolanovic, quantitative analysts at JPMorgan Chase and Co., also wrote that many of Trump’s policies would be ‘pro-growth,’ even while uncertainty about specifics remains high. They wrote this week that if the campaign promises that have the potential to stimulate growth get implemented, the S&P 500 could see as much as $20 in additional earnings-per-share growth over the next few years.”

“Of course there’s no suggestion that all industries will benefit alike: Goldman’s analysts expect some to miss out, and some even to suffer under Trump,” Verhage reports. “Some respondents said they expected the election outcome to weigh negatively on their sectors; among those were autos, aerospace, clean energy, and agribusiness.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Good news for long-suffering AAPL shareholders?

SEE ALSO:
Apple: The Trump Effect – November 29, 2016
President-elect Trump tells Apple CEO Tim Cook that he’d like to see Apple make products in the U.S. – November 23, 2016
President-elect Trump says Apple CEO Tim Cook called him after election victory – November 22, 2016
Jim Cramer: Two reasons why President Trump could save Apple billions – November 19, 2016

31 Comments

    1. Sorry about the double post. My post appeared, and then disappeared for a few minutes. Maybe MDN should spend more time fixing technical web page glitches and less waving the Nazi flag.

        1. Meaningless. Not the rules of the game. Citing popular vote totals signifies that you are a fool. Like saying that Major League Baseball should use total runs scored to decide who won the World Series instead of wins – after the games have been played.

          For Democrats: Runs in this example equal popular votes. Wins equal electoral votes. The rules agreed upon by both parties were and are that Wins determine the Series victor, not total runs scored. That is how they set up their teams and how they played to win.

          Citing popular vote totals signifies that you are trying to change the rules of the game AFTER you’ve lost, like a three-year-old.

          You lost. Stop making yourself look even stupider. Or don’t. We don’t care. We’re too busy getting ready to annihilate Obama’s litany of bullshit and stack the Supreme Court with conservatives for decades to come.

          1. It’s only meaningless until Paul Ryan and the rest of the GOP start talking about mandates to roll back 60 years of social progress. Then it matters. Fact is, the voters didn’t back Trump (and his far-right Cabinet picks), they backed Clinton.

            Trump IS the President-elect. But he enters office without any real mandate for change, and had better start moving to the middle if he expects anything to get through the Senate.

        2. Twelfth Amendment

          The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice…. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President to the United States.

            1. I believe it was ‘Psycho’ Paul Ryan, inexplicably the Speaker of the House, who made up the BS about an imaginary ‘Trump Mandate’.

              How can you tell when Paul Ryan is lying? …

              When someone won the Electoral College but LOST the popular vote by 2+ MILLION, what does that tell you?

    2. gotta say this site has really changed over the several years i have been reading and occasionally posting comments.

      as i recall it was much more tightly focused on apple products and there were more contributors who really knew their stuff and were offering interesting insights into a multitude of issues surrounding both hardware and software. and their capabilities. there still are a few like that but not like before.

      in the last two or three years, especially, it is increasingly becoming more and more an outlet for deeply political rants and increasingly stark language and name calling.

      this site is getting less and less informative and less fun to read.

      maybe mr. mdn might want to lay out a few ground rules and discourage outwardly political tirades. it is getting really tiresome.

      1. It hasn’t changed one bit. The only difference is that the Democrat lost. So, you think this site’s changed, but it hasn’t. MDN routinely covered Obama admin news when it touched on Apple. Just like they did with Bush before him.

      2. “in the last two or three years, especially, it is increasingly becoming more and more an outlet for deeply political rants and increasingly stark language and name calling.

        this site is getting less and less informative and less fun to read.”

        ….kind of like the whole internet you say….?? :/

    1. GM and Chrysler almost bit the dust thanks to the unions. Then Obama bailed them out instead of letting them go into normal bankruptcy and emerging strong enough to compete. End cost to American taxpayer was $1.3 billion. Where’s Chrysler now? Owned by Fiat, dummy. You’re no smarter than Obama.

      1. We disagree as to why GM and Chrysler almost bit the dust. If it really WAS the unions, than Ford would have also been in trouble. The only difference? Ford had secured their long-term financing BEFORE the crash.

        GM and Chrysler couldn’t get the cash they needed from their banks to gear up for the new model year, which is why they almost went under. Once they got their financing, they recovered quite nicely.

        And to be fair, the total cost to taxpayers was about $9 billion, according to the last figures I could find. But it’s estimated that NOT saving the auto industry, letting GM and Chrysler go bankrupt as many had proposed, would have cost the economy and the Midwest about $100 billion in losses.

        Finally, the entire TARP program, including money funneled to banks, auto companies and other businesses, ended up making a profit of $15 billion or so. Honestly, I think the money should have gone to homeowners instead of the banks, but either way, the country got what it paid for.

      2. Good old REVISIONIST ‘First-Then’.

        • GM and Chrysler had FAR worse problems than the unions. DUH.
        • It was BUSH who provided GM and Chrysler with corporate welfare. It happened before Obama took the oath of office. DUH. But Obama certainly did continue the corporate welfare process, one of many reasons the Democraps are just as lousy as the Retardlicans. (Equal opportunity insults).

        Q: Should the US government EVER bailout any business? Obviously NOT. Find any law indicating that We The People, whom our government serves, has ANY obligation to bailout any business. Please.

        So who exactly is no smarter than Obama? Oh, it’s you, as usual, ‘First-Then’. You’re impervious to sense or logic. You’re a walking parrot of Republican talking points. ‘Polly want a cracker?’ 😛

  1. No Apple news here.

    Trump is as criminal or worse than the D.C. establishment. By his cabinet choices you can see he has zero intention to drain the swamp. Moreover, he has no policy to allow anyone to predict what will happen, his campaign was ~80% lies (that was tracked and is verifiable). To make matters worse, he has less education and experience in government than any prior executive in history.

    It’s amazing how an empty phrase like make America great again could attract so many people. Isn’t America still great? How do you measure it? Doesn’t it matter if the guy chanting the phrase is one of the worst offenders in taking away the much-ballyhooed American dream away from ordinary citizens? Trump had ~50 active lawsuits against him, a long list of banks who refuse to ever again do business with him, a tax record that would reveal his best skill is ripping off contractors by weaseling through bankruptcy.

    To the millions of working class people who voted for Trump: he’s not one of you. Steve Jobs uttered the truth when he said that menial labor jobs aren’t coming back from Asia. If you want a good job, the donald ain’t gonna do squat for you. He’s going to start international squabbling that hurts everyone. If you are unhappy with the economy that has grown stable and steady for8 straight years, then your best bet is to skip all the apple gadgets his year for xmas and invest in education instead. We’re all going to need to be prepared for turbulence ahead.

    1. As much sense as what you say makes, I’m afraid it will fall on completely deaf ears (with the exception of the like-minded people).

      America has, over the past few years, divided itself into two walled and heavily fortified echo-chambers, which simply no longer allow for exchange of thoughts or ideas. Ideology has poisoned American political discourse and there simply is no solution for the future of the country if it continues like this. What makes it even worse is that the past election cycle was won (and lost) largely on fake news and untruths delivered by the campaigns. And to make sure we don’t do any relativisation here, it has been determined that the amount of fake news (and campaign untruths) delivered by the conservative side was considerably greater than the other side (around 80%, vs. around 25%).

      The gloating of the Republicans today is even greater than was the gloating of Democrats 4 (or 8) years ago. What makes things worse is that the winning side fails to understand that half of the country (that’s 160 million people) disagrees with them; yet, they zealously pursue the most radical direction of their platform, with complete disregard for the other half of the country.

      The only real (and totally unrealistic and impossible) solution would be to split America into two countries along the ideological lines. Unfortunately, this isn’t a simple North-South, or East-West division; the physical boundary simply doesn’t exist, as one side mostly lives in large urban areas, while the other populates the rural spaces in between.

      So, America seems to be on a path of wide oscillations between one and the other, as each side frantically tries to undo everything the other did four (or eight) years prior.

      That is, until the percentage of white male uneducated voters becomes so low (and that of the black, Hispanic, non-white ones so high) that the Republicans of today lose any chance of winning the presidency (or even the senate) anymore. And that may well happen at the next election.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.