Greg Valliere

Greg Valliere has been quoted 34 times. The one recent article where Greg Valliere has been quoted is Wall Street will be looking for one thing from Trump's 'must-see' speech. Most recently, Greg Valliere was quoted as having said, “For now the market wants to get a sense that he's on top of this and there is a plan going forward – once we do Obamacare and the spending stuff that we are going to do tax reform and on and on. I think he'll say the right things the market wants to hear. He lives in an adoring echo chamber. I'm not sure he realizes how important this speech is for him to get things back on track.”.

Greg Valliere quotes

Automatically powered by

Make no mistake: a defeat in Thursday's vote would send a clear signal that the rest of Trump's agenda – taxes, the budget, infrastructure, etc. – is in trouble.

For now the market wants to get a sense that he's on top of this and there is a plan going forward – once we do Obamacare and the spending stuff that we are going to do tax reform and on and on. I think he'll say the right things the market wants to hear. He lives in an adoring echo chamber. I'm not sure he realizes how important this speech is for him to get things back on track.

We're still going to get a tax cut. We're still going to get tax reform. I just think this complicates things even more.

I wouldn't call it dead, but I would say it's on life support. [Trump's] been all over the lot on this issue. They [retailers] may have persuaded him to oppose this tax. That's speculation. If they do, I think Ryan's got to come up with a trillion dollars. I don't see a trillion dollars. Let it be a revenue loser on paper. Proponents of a big tax cut say it would generate a gusher of revenues over the next few years. There is the threat they have to consider a slightly smaller tax cut and that would generate real opposition from the White House.

[O]ne of the reasons the stock market rallied in recent months was the prospect of action in Washington on these four major bills–and suddenly they seem bogged down.

There's going to be such on intense focus on this for several days that it will reinforce some anxiety in the market that a lot of economic reforms, tax cuts, things like that are not at the top of the list of his priorities.

The bottom line is he only has a certain amount of political capital.

Trump totally lacks self-discipline, going after Meryl Streep.

The big ones are Russia and conflicts of interest. Number one is going to be conflicts of interest. There's so many juicy issues with his business ties and his kids. There will be lots of questions on conflicts and then Russia. Three would be Obamacare.

I think there's a fundamental difference on corporate taxes. On taxes in general, Trump wants big tax cuts, more generous than House Republicans. On the other hand, House Republicans are more interested in tax reform. The latter wouldn't cost as much.

The 'sugar high' stock market rally after the election was entirely warranted because there's a good prospect of stronger GDP growth in the next two years – stimulated by tax reform and reduced regulations. But the legislative process is often glacial: This will not be a 1,000-mile sprint, it will be one step at a time, starting at noon today.

Trump is inclined to appoint critics of Janet Yellen, and I would view this as part of his long-range plan to get rid of her.

I think the real concern is whether Trump aligns himself with people who want to curb the Fed's authority. If there's one appointment that would send a chill through the Fed it would be Jeb Hensarling, and I think that would send an alarm through the Federal Reserve and maybe be viewed by concern in the financial markets.

She's not going to encourage that kind of speculation. She knows she has 15 months to go.

I would think given the opportunity, she would try to steer people away from any legislation that would curb the Fed's authority. I think the House is going to move on something next year, at least an audit.

I have a hard time believing we're going to get populist unity. The populism of Bernie Sanders is a hell of a lot different than Donald Trump's. It's out there as a factor. But the overriding difference is that the economy is clearly showing signs of accelerating, and an improving economy would weaken some of that populist fervor.

Investors appreciate the likely gridlock that's going to prevail. For a lot of Americans it's frustrating, but for the markets, gridlock means they do less harm.

If it's anything like the GDP report, it helps her. … If it's a good number, he'll say it's fake. If it's a bad number, he'll have a field day with it.

First of all, she needs something to deflect attention away from the slump she's in.

This is still another reason why Trump will probably lose. The economy is in decent shape so decent that the Fed will have to raise interest rates later this year.

It has to worry the markets that potentially you could have a president getting into a nasty dispute with the chairman of the Fed in early 2017. That's something the market would not like to see. I think the Fed has not done a very good job communicating. It's a cacophony of confusing comments. There's reason to criticize the Fed, but the personal attack on Yellen is unprecedented.

She has some very vocal critics in the House. She always gets a rough time during Q and A from [Rep. Jeb] Hensarling and people like that. I'm sure she'll get a thorough grilling.

This is extraordinary. This is really unprecedented for someone this close to the presidency to criticize the Fed chairman in personal terms, very strident and personal terms. I can't recall any precedent for that. I think the markets have to worry about this. I think there's a real chance that he could align himself with the members of Congress that want to sharply curb the Fed's independence.

I still feel the markets have not priced in a potential Trump victory. I think most people in the market think she's going to win, and if you look at the electoral college map, you can still make that case even though it's tightened. I think the market would have to focus on what it means if he were to win. First and foremost, the market has to care about uncertainty. He changes his positions with regularity.

If he's snarling and nasty, that might please his base but will it look presidential for a lot of swing voters who have not paid that much attention? Will Hillary Clinton still look energetic in the last half hour? She'll probably win points. Her knowledge of the details still exceeds his. He may have some gaffes and get some facts wrong, but for most viewers it will [be] the image he's projecting.

Obamacare is in trouble, and the announcement of huge premium increases will be embarrassing for the Democrats, who will urge adoption of a public option. Clinton will seek to change the subject ? she targeted Mylan's allergy drug pricing yesterday. She will be a headline risk for drug companies for months (or years) to come.

Being a cynic, I would say they're so far behind on fundraising, why would they want to antagonize Wall Street at this point? Just because something is in a platform doesn't mean he's going to advocate it. A platform is just a bunch of words.

He does have a lot of programs that cost a lot of money. To me it's a reason why the long-term trend in bond yields is higher. I think if he were to win, the deficit would jump significantly. If Hillary were to win, I think the deficit would jump modestly. I think that is something the bond market is going to have to pay attention to.

The other part of the story is the infrastructure stocks. I would say both Trump and Hillary could have a surprising degree of agreement on this.

It's a genuine concern, but investors have to realize he could take action without congressional approval. I do think that's a serious threat, but I would also say that neither he nor Hillary is going to be very aggressive looking for new trade deals. I think we hit a wall on things like the Trans Pacific Partnership. With him there's a serious risk there could be worsening relations with China.

I think both Hillary and Trump need a deal in 2017. I think some kind of a deal that combines repatriation for earnings – the corporate profits that are stashed in Europe. It's a huge story for drug companies and technology companies.

There's really this pervasive anti-Wall Street, anti-business view in both parties. I think there's a cloud over Wall Street that's not going to dissipate anytime soon. The problem with Trump is just the level of uncertainty. With Hillary, I think she's more practical. She's not going to try to put Glass-Steagall back together again. She's not going to try to dismantle Dodd Frank.

It's politically radioactive to support free trade right now.

The problem is a lot of these new Tea Party members actually have great antipathy towards Wall Street and the big banks. Wall Street and big banks are the villains for a lot of the Tea Party crowd. So no I think the lobbying is not really being met with open arms among a lot of these radical Republicans.

No quotes...
More Greg Valliere quotes
|< <
{{currentQuotePage}}/{{numberPage}}
> >|
<
>