Finance
What financial markets say about the economic implications of a potential Trump election victory
Some of Donald Trump’s policy proposals could have profound macroeconomic implications, but there is large uncertainty around the (net) economic effects a second Trump term would have. For instance, would the US dollar appreciate due to new tariffs, or would it fall in the face of Trump’s repeated vocal opposition to a strong dollar? And what would a Trump victory mean for US growth or the disinflationary process underway in both the US and the euro area? As the election draws closer, this uncertainty has already led to heightened volatility in financial markets, as documented by Albori and coauthors in a recent VoxEU contribution (Albori et al. 2024). Extending their analysis, in this column we use betting market data in a VAR model to assess the economic implications of a second Trump term from the perspective of financial market participants.
Measuring Trump’s victory odds using betting data
We directly measure the market’s evolving assessment of Trump’s victory prospects using data from prediction markets. These markets allow participants to bet money on certain events, including election outcomes. As with other financial market prices, betting quotes then contain all sorts of information that might affect the outcome of the bet, and have been used by Moramarco and coauthors to quantify political risk in a Vox contribution (Moramarco et al. 2020). For our analysis, we use implied probabilities of a Trump victory in the upcoming US presidential election from PredictIt and PolyMarket, as averaged and provided by Bloomberg.
Relative to election polling data – which were used by Albori et al. (2024) – betting odds come with several advantages. First, they account for the particularities of the US electoral system such as the Electoral College.
An improvement, say, in polling numbers does not necessarily translate into better chances of actually winning the election.
Second, polling data are gathered over several days and published with a lag.
In contrast, betting odds respond to election-relevant news almost immediately in an information efficient way.
However, the odds of a Trump election win, and by implication betting quotes, will generally respond to all sorts of news and economic developments, giving rise to an identification problem. For instance, the publication of surprisingly high US inflation readings might lower the odds of a Democratic win because they could signal continued price pressures that weigh on the current administration’s perceived economic performance. To the extent that an inflation surprise also signals more restrictive US monetary policy, asset prices might fall. Therefore, an observed co-movement of betting odds and asset prices is not necessarily informative about what we are ultimately interested in, namely, the causal effect of changes in Trump’s likelihood to win the election, as interpreted by financial markets.
We overcome this identification problem by exploiting the real-time nature of betting quotes. Specifically, we measure the high-frequency movements of Trump betting odds around key election-related events (see Table 1).
These events clearly affected the markets’ assessment of the likelihood of a Trump victory, but were independent of other factors such as the state of the economy. This allows us to use these high-frequency movements as an instrumental variable in a financial market VAR, which we describe below.
Figure 1 Betting odds around two key election-related events
Note: Implied probabilities for a Trump (light blue) and Harris/Biden (dark dashed) victory in the US presidential elections 2024 derived from prediction markets around the assassination attempt on July 13 (left panel) and the 2nd presidential debate (right panel). Values in percent. Time refers to Easter Daylight Time (EDT, Washington D.C.).
Source: ElectionBettingOdds.com, authors’ calculations.
To illustrate the approach, Figure 1 shows the evolution of betting odds around two such election-related events. The left panel depicts the implied probability of a Trump victory, next to the one for Biden or Harris, around the failed assassination attempt on Trump on 13 July. In the hours before the event, the likelihood of a Trump victory was steady at around 59%. Yet, once the failed attempt on Trump’s life – and his defiant response in its aftermath – were reported around 6:30pm EDT, the probability jumped up to roughly 65%. The odds of a Biden/Harris win dropped correspondingly. The right panel shows that Harris’ chances of winning increased by almost 4 percentage points around the second presidential debate on 10 September, in line with the perception that Harris delivered a more convincing performance.
Notably, both events occurred when other US markets were closed (on the weekend and in the late evening, respectively), such that other US news or data releases are unlikely to explain the observed jumps.
Table 1 Events used to construct the instrument
Note: The third column shows the change in Trump’s election likelihood in a 2-3 hour window around the respective event, which we use as the instrument value on these days.
Source: ElectionBettingOdds.com, authors’ calculations.
The causal effects of a higher Trump election likelihood on financial markets in a structural financial market model
We estimate a financial market VAR model containing daily observations of eight variables from 1 January to 13 September 2024.
As outlined, the first variable measures the probability that Trump will win the election, expressed in log odds. Additionally, the model contains two-year treasury yields, the (log) S&P 500, and the (log) EUR-USD exchange rate to capture important aspects of the US economy. We further add prices of assets that arguably stand to benefit from a Trump victory, as often reported in the financial press (the log share price of Trump Media & Technology Group (DJT), and the log price of Bitcoin in USD).
Finally, we include market-based inflation compensation (inflation linked swaps) in the US and the euro area over the next 24 months as a measure capturing genuine inflation expectations and associated inflation risks.
Armed with the instrument derived from high-frequency movements in betting odds, we can then identify and trace out the dynamic effects of a Trump election likelihood shock. Figure 2 shows that a 20% increase in Trump’s log odds to win the election (equivalent a five percentage point increase in the probability of a win) increases the two asset prices associated with so-called Trump trades significantly: the price of Bitcoin increases by more than 3% on impact, the DJT share price by almost 10%. We interpret these results as lending credibility to the underlying identification scheme.
An increase in the likelihood that Trump wins the presidential election also significantly affects key US financial market prices. Two-year US interest rates rise by roughly five basis points following the shock, whereas the S&P 500 tends to fall at least initially by almost half a percent. The same applies for the EUR-USD exchange rate, implying an immediate depreciation of the euro.
Notably, both US and euro area two-year inflation swap rates rise and reach a peak response of almost four basis points.
Figure 2 Impulse responses to a Trump election likelihood shock
Note: Impulse responses in the daily financial market VAR model to an exogenous shock to the likelihood of a Trump victory in the US presidential election, normalized to increase Trump’s log odds by 20% (equivalent to a five percentage point increase in the implied probability). All values in percent(age points). Dark shaded areas denote 68%, light shaded areas 90% confidence bands.
Taken together, the impulse responses suggest that market participants associate a Trump election victory, if anything, with contractionary supply-side effects on net. Such an interpretation would be in line with standard macroeconomic theory to the extent that some of Trump’s policy proposals (imposing additional tariffs, expelling migrants) would increase price pressures but weigh on potential output in the US. If instead demand-type effects dominated, one would expect the observed rise in inflation expectations to be accompanied by an increase in broad stock market valuations. The estimated increase in two-year interest rates can be rationalised by the expectation of tighter US monetary policy as a response to rising inflationary pressures. Finally, a weaker euro is in line with expectations that Trump would raise tariffs also on European and not just on Chinese goods (Jeanne and Son 2024). This euro depreciation, alongside higher tariff-driven import prices, would transmit inflationary pressures to the euro area as well.
Authors’ note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Bundesbank or the Eurosystem.
References
Albori, M, A Moro and V Nispi Landi (2024), “US election risks and the impact of Trump’s re-election odds on financial markets”, VoxEU.org, 24 July.
Gertler, M and P Karadi (2015), “Monetary Policy Surprises, Credit Costs, and Economic Activity”, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 7(1):44-76.
Jeanne, O and J Son (2024), ‘To what extent are tariffs offset by exchange rates?’, Journal of International Money and Finance 142:103015.
Moramarco, G, G Trigilia and P Manasse (2020), “Political risk and exchange rates: The lessons of Brexit”, VoxEU.org, 17 February.
Finance
Local M&A advisory firm Matrix acquired by banking giant Citizens Financial – Richmond BizSense
Matri x Capital Markets Group is now a division of Citizens Financial Group. (Image Courtesy Citizens Financial Group)
Matrix Capital Markets Group is used to helping businesses line up mergers and acquisitions.
For its latest transaction, the Richmond-based M&A advisory and investment banking firm was itself the subject of the deal.
Matrix was acquired last week by Rhode Island-based banking giant Citizens Financial Group.
Matrix, along with its nearly three dozen employees, including 20 in Richmond, are now operating as a division of Citizens, within the $226 billion bank’s investment banking arm, Citizens JMP Securities.
Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed. It involved an asset purchase that bought out Matrix’s 15 shareholders.
The deal ends Matrix’s 38-year run as an independent firm, a notable streak in an industry where consolidation of smaller firms into larger ones is common.
Matrix was founded in Richmond in 1988 by Scott Frayser and Jeff Moore and has since hit its stride by building a niche in handling deals for companies in the downstream energy and convenience retail sector.
The firm has been run in recent years by president Spencer Cavalier and Cedric Fortemps, co-head of the firm’s largest investment banking team.
Fortemps said Matrix began to search for a larger acquirer last year.
Cedric Fortemps
“The board decided to see if we could find a partner and a transaction that could build on what we’ve built thus far,” Fortemps said.
Matrix enlisted investment banking firm Houlihan Lokey to help in the search and negotiate on its behalf, along with the law firm Calfee as its legal advisor.
Fortemps said Citizen rose to the top of the pack of suitors in part due to JMP Securities’ track record of acquiring smaller firms like Matrix.
“They have acquired four other firms very similar to ours. Seeing the successes they had with those groups… the playbook is really to let the firms continue to operate the way they had,” Fortemps said.
Matrix’s Richmond office in the Gateway Plaza building downtown will continue to operate, as will its second office in Baltimore.
The Matrix brand will continue to be used for the time being but will eventually be phased out.
Fortemps said the firm’s success and particularly its growth in recent years has been fueled by its expertise in working deals for downstream energy clients – such as wholesale fuels distributors, propane and heating oil distributors – and convenience store and gas station chains.
Matrix’s rise in that sector began in 1997, when it hired Tom Kelso, who lived in Baltimore and owned a heating oil fuels distribution business. Kelso, who would eventually serve as the firm’s president prior to Cavalier, had a vision to launch an M&A firm for that industry.
“It took seven to eight years to grow it but eventually we were able to get a reputation of really high quality work and those successes on smaller transactions resulted in us being considered for larger deals,” Fortemps said.
Today, 21of the firm’s 26 investment bankers work on the team that handles deals for those industries. It controls about 40% market share for the M&A market for those sectors, Fortemps said.
The firm closes nearly two dozen transactions a year over the last five years and has closed 500 deals since its inception.
The typical value of its deals is more than $20 million, though the transactions it has closed over the last three years in the energy and convenience retail sectors have grown to $140 million per deal, Matrix said.
Its largest deal to date was closed last year, involving the $1.6 billion acquisition of convenience store chain Giant Eagle.
Matrix also works deals in other industries such as lubricants distribution, automotive after-market suppliers and car washes, as well as outdoor recreation and the marine industry.
After decades of representing buyers and sellers in M&A, Fortemps said the Citizens deal was a new experience for the Matrix team: being the target of the transaction, rather than the ones facilitating it.
“It certainly made me appreciate everything our clients have to go through on the other side of the table,” he said.
Finance
Deutsche Bank’s Expanding Sports Finance Strategy
As the business side of team sports, such as football, becomes larger and more complex, the opportunities for banks to provide financing solutions for the individuals and institutions involved proliferate. At Deutsche Bank’s private bank, it sees considerable opportunities ahead.
With American and other non-UK investors/owners buying into UK
football teams, it has highlighted that handling the
financial side of sports is now a distinct asset class that even
those uninterested in sports should consider.
Deutsche Bank’s private banking arm certainly considers sports
finance a sufficiently large area to warrant a specialist
offering, as announced
a few days ago. The business focuses on Europe and the
US.
The financing business is led by Arjun Nagarkatti, who is the
head of the private bank for the US and Europe international
business. Deutsche
Bank has appointed Sowmya Kotha in London and Joshua Frank in
New York, who report to Adam Russ, head of wealth management and
business lending.
“Sport can be a local passion project. However, it is becoming
more of a legitimate asset class. Even a non-sports person should
look at sports,” Nagarkatti told WealthBriefing in a
meeting at the German bank’s London offices in the City. “These
are big businesses and a lot of people still don’t know how big
they are.”
Family offices/ultra HNW individuals are trying to take
a “more institutional” approach to transacting in sports
teams, he said.
Setting up such a business feeds into the specialist lending and
financial advisory work that Deutsche has discussed
with this publication in recent months. (See
an example here – via Hong Kong.) This work uses the
combined private bank/investment banking connections where
private clients will also have operating business concerns.
The sports financing business shows that this area is not simply
a private banking niche. Rival Citigroup, for example,
spoke to this news service in 2025 about its work with
ultra-wealthy people wanting to buy, sell and run sports teams.
Our US correspondent recently wrote about opportunities for
wealth management arising from changes in college
sports.
The expanded capability at Deutsche on the sports side is
“significant for the bank,” Nagarkatti said. “It is a core focus
for us.”
UHNW sports owners/potential owners tend to be ideal clients –
they are internationally minded, want advice and guidance on
financial/personal wealth matters, he continued. “This is a big
opportunity for us and it is a consistent connection we have had
with clients, and we have been doing this for 10 to 15
years.”
Deutsche is initially concentrating on the English Premier
League. As its US franchise has expanded, this has led to
financing across all four major US sports leagues: National
Football League; Major League Baseball; National Basketball
Association, and National Hockey League.
Mention of cross-border owners of clubs leads to potential owners
of, say, a UK football club needing to understand that when
they buy a team, they’re also buying into hopes and dreams.
Owners raise their heads above a parapet – not always a fun
experience.
“You become a public figure,” Nagarkatti said.
One example that springs to mind is Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the
billionaire founder of INEOS, the chemical producer who took
a 27.7 per cent stake in Manchester United more than a year
ago. While well known in business circles before buying into the
“Red Devils” –
one of the most famous sports institutions in the world – his
profile has risen since, with every comment – controversial or
otherwise – analysed, not always kindly.
American owners of teams have to adjust to the risk, for example
when a football (soccer) team gets relegated, Nagarkatti
said. Anyone looking to own a club must understand risks,
including how their public profile, assuming they were very
private people, rises rapidly, and in ways that are not always
comfortable if a team has problems, he said.
There is a need for realism.
“When you buy these top assets, you must spend time and work them
and increase their value. You must be prepared to invest time,
such as on the team, stadiums, facilities,” Nagarkatti said. “It
is like buying a hotel. You cannot just sit there and think it
will go up in value by 10 times.”
For the wealth management industry in general, the business of
sports teams, as well as the individual financial affairs of
sportsmen and women, has become a distinct – and large –
specialism. For example, the Rockefeller Global Family Office has
experts who look after athletes and entertainers. Other firms
that have expertise in and around sports include Carnegie Private
Wealth, for example, and Merrill Lynch Management. In the UK, the
private banking group Coutts has a sports, media and
entertainment division for its wealthy clients. Standard
Chartered, the UK-listed bank with a significant presence in
Asia, has launched a new alternative fund focused on sports for
ultra-high net worth and high net worth clients under its Global
Private Bank. Standard Chartered is a sponsor of Liverpool
FC.
Deutsche Bank announced 2025 full-year and fourth-quarter
financial results here.
Finance
Retired Aussies facing sad $60,000 superannuation reality impacting millions: ‘Very real’
Australians now need a record amount of superannuation to afford a comfortable retirement, and one group is still lagging significantly behind. Women are approaching retirement with tens of thousands of dollars less in superannuation than men, but there are moves that can be made now to help close the gap.
By the age of 40 to 44, men have a median super balance of $108,344, compared to women with $79,445 – a gap of nearly $30,000. This gap peaks in the 55 to 59 age range, where men have $202,584 on average and women $140,662 – a difference of more than $60,000.
AustralianSuper deputy chief executive and chief member officer Rose Kerlin told Yahoo Finance while we’ve seen some improvements over time, the super gender gap is “still very real” and becomes the most obvious as women approached retirement.
RELATED
“A big part of the gap comes down to caregiving and disparities in pay. When women take time out of the workforce or move into part-time roles to care for children or family members, their super takes a hit, and that impact compounds year after year,” she said.
This gap is particularly worrying now that a single homeowner aged 67 needs a lump sum of $630,000, up from $595,000, to achieve a comfortable retirement. Couple homeowners need a balance of $730,000 in super, which is up from $690,000.
In contrast, the latest ATO data shows men at or approaching retirement at 60 to 64 have a median balance of $219,73, while women have $163,218.
The government has flagged reforms to help address the gap. Since July last year, superannuation has been paid on government parental leave payments.
From July next year, the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset (LISTO) income threshold will increase from $37,000 to $45,000 to align with the top of the second income-tax bracket. The maximum LISTO payment will increase from $500 to $810.
While policy reform is important, Kerlin said there were also things women could do now to feel more on top of their super and more confident about where they’re headed.
“Small actions today can help build greater confidence and security for the years ahead,” she said.
One action could be making additional contributions, even small ones, whenever possible, as this could make a big difference over time.
AustralianSuper’s modelling found that someone who made after-tax contributions of $600 annually between the ages of 35 to 39 and met the eligibility criteria for the government’s co-contribution of $300 each year could retire with $9,000 more.
-
Wisconsin1 week agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts6 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Maryland1 week agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida1 week agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Pennsylvania4 days agoPa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
-
Oregon1 week ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
News1 week ago2 Survivors Describe the Terror and Tragedy of the Tahoe Avalanche
-
Sports5 days agoKeith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death