In 2020, Biden and Harris presented themselves as a team who would bring Republicans and Democrats together, challenging Trump’s divisive and populist rhetoric of making America great again. Although Trump ultimately lost that election, his popularity remained steadfast among his base.
During the first debate between Harris and Trump, which took place on September 10, 2024, Harris focused on her platform’s key economic policies, including increased support for first-time home buyers, families and small businesses. She was also committed to investing in diverse forms of energy, including renewables and oil and gas, to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Meanwhile, Trump maintained a focus on the key issues of his base including policing and immigration, but also discussed his economic plan that would see continued economic pressures on trade with China by increasing tariffs.
When it came to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Harris pledged her support for both Ukraine and other US allies in Europe. While Trump did not say he supported Ukraine, he said he was also committed to ending the war, and planned to push Ukrainian funding to European partners while attempting to bring Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the negotiating table.
The gold price has climbed significantly under both administrations. It is currently holding at historic levels around the US$2,500 mark, more than double its price when Trump took office in 2017. Interest rates are expected to see cuts following a Federal Open Markets Committee meeting on September 17 and 18, which could give gold a further boost in the run-up to election day.
How does gold typically perform post-election, and how has it moved during Trump and Biden’s presidencies? While the past doesn’t necessarily dictate the future, reviewing gold price trends can help investors plan their election strategy.
Looking at past US elections can provide insight on how the gold price may move in the days and weeks following November 5. However, on a broad scale, changes post-election tend to normalize fairly quickly.
In 2016, when Trump ran against Hillary Clinton, the gold price climbed by about US$50 in the weeks leading up to the November 8 election, peaking at just above US$1,300 per ounce on November 4. Following Trump’s win gold fell substantially, moving as low as US$1,128 in mid-December. Following that low point, the gold price began to rebound, and by the middle of January 2017 was once again above the US$1,200 level.
Gold price, November 1, 2016, to January 30, 2017.
The 2020 election was on November 3, and in the week leading up to the vote gold was trading at around US$1,900, although it fell as low as US$1,867 on October 30. After the election, the gold price performed positively, spiking from US$1,908 on the day of the vote to US$1,951 on November 6.
Gold price, November 1, 2020, to January 30, 2021.
The gold price rose substantially during Trump’s presidency, increasing from US$1,209 when he assumed office on January 20, 2017, to US$1,839 on his final day, which was January 19, 2021.
While these gains can’t be directly attributed to Trump, his actions helped shape the geopolitical landscape both in the US and abroad. During his tenure, trade wars with both allies and competitors were in focus.
Gold has also seen sizable gains during Biden’s presidency. The price of gold was US$1,871 when he took over from Trump on January 20, 2021. And while Biden’s term as president is not over for another five months, as of July 23, the gold price was trading at about US$2,409. It reached a new record on July 17 of US$2,474.
Again, it’s hard to say how many of the Biden administration’s policies directly influenced these gains. Geopolitical conflict and black swan events outside of his control all affected the gold market during this time.
For example, Biden and Harris entered office one year after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Inflation was ballooning, which typically leads to higher gold prices. The US Federal Reserve has worked to counteract inflation and strengthen the US dollar by raising interest rates beginning in 2022, a move that tempered the gold price for a time.
Additionally, Biden’s role in implementing a strict set of sanctions against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 deepened a divide between the US and Russia, as well as the other BRICS nations.
Though this year’s presidential election may have a limited effect on the price of gold, a rate decision by the Fed may impact the metal’s price. Decisions made by the US central bank, which is not controlled by the president, have a strong impact on the US dollar and thus often impact the gold price as well.
The Federal Open Market Committee, which is the board that ultimately decides whether to increase or decrease interest rates, is set to meet from November 6 to 7, just one day after the November 5 election.
After strong expectations for cuts at the beginning of 2024 didn’t pan out, with the Fed still holding rates steady as of July, market participants now expect the Fed to make its first reduction in September.
Gold tends to rise when rates are lower and fall when they are high, but this year gold has reached all-time highs in the face of elevated rates. A post-election rate cut could boost gold further, but with a Fed meetings still to come in September, it’s not yet clear how the November meeting will play out.
Which party controls Congress, which is comprised of the House and Senate, has had a far stronger influence on the gold price. Under Democrat-controlled Congresses, gold has averaged a 20.9 percent gain, compared to just 3.9 percent when Congress is controlled by Republicans. In cases where neither controls Congress, gold has averaged 3.5 percent.
With that in mind, investors should consider the effects of policies enacted not only by the executive branch of the US government, but also by Congress and the Senate. Those hoping to use the immediate aftermath of the election outcome to their advantage should also proceed with caution — when it comes to gold, past elections haven’t provided great investment opportunities, with losses and gains typically being short-lived.
Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Editorial Disclosure: The Investing News Network does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported in the interviews it conducts. The opinions expressed in these interviews do not reflect the opinions of the Investing News Network and do not constitute investment advice. All readers are encouraged to perform their own due diligence.
Affiliate Disclosure: The Investing News Network may earn commission from qualifying purchases or actions made through the links or advertisements on this page.
The data, which draws from the last 37 years, shows that monthly demand in the first year following a Democratic win averages 79,000 ounces of gold, while the average following a Republican win is 32,500 gold ounces.
The WGC report suggests that retail investors’ demand for gold bars and coins is partly driven by their perceptions of economic policies when a Democrat is in office.
These views include the likelihood of administrations to implement policies that could lead to economic instability or higher inflation, prompting them to seek the safety of tangible assets like gold.
However, this does not necessarily mean gold prices follow the same trend. While the report notes a possible correlation, this behavior is not uniformly observed in other types of gold investments, such as ETFs or central bank purchases, showing the complexity of predicting gold prices based on political outcomes alone.
Instead, the report emphasizes the enduring role of geopolitical risk in gold’s performance.
A 100 basis point rise in the Geopolitical Risk (GPR) Index has an approximate 2.5 percent positive impact on gold’s return, according to WGC data, reinforcing gold’s status as a safe haven during times of elevated geopolitical tension.
The GPR Index is constructed using automated text analysis of national and international newspapers, counting the number of articles discussing geopolitical tensions, wars and other forms of political unrest.
The index provides a quantitative measure of geopolitical risk, allowing investors to gauge how such events might influence asset prices, including gold.
The attempted assassination of Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania, where he sustained a minor wound, led to a surge in gold prices and Bitcoin prices over the following days.
This incident underscores how sudden geopolitical events can influence investor behavior and drive demand for safe-haven assets, even if the broader trend does not directly correlate with political party dynamics.
The WGC report concludes that while US presidential elections and the resulting administrations do impact investor perceptions and behaviors, these factors are part of a broader array of influences on gold prices. The increase in gold bar and coin demand during Democratic presidencies suggests that retail investors are reacting to perceived economic threats rather than the political party itself.
Thus, predicting gold prices based on political events alone is inherently complex, as investor behavior is influenced by a multitude of factors beyond just the party in power.
Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Electric vehicles (EVs) are key to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change, and the Biden administration has implemented subsidies and tax incentives to foster US and North American supply chains.
More specifically, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal invests in upgrading US infrastructure, including roads, bridges, public transit, and broadband internet. Meanwhile, the CHIPS and Science Act promotes US semiconductor manufacturing and research to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, and the Inflation Reduction Act focuses on reducing the deficit, lowering drug costs and investing in clean energy to combat climate change.
On the EV side, US$2 billion in funding is being directed toward the Department of Energy to provide grants for domestic production of various types of clean vehicles, from hybrids to hydrogen fuel cell cars. There are also critical minerals manufacturing subsidies and several consumer incentives, including a US$7,500 tax credit on new EV purchases.
“Tax credits and tax incentives are not generally a very good thing,” he said.
“I’m not making any final decisions on (EV tax credits). I’m a big fan of electric cars, but I’m a fan of gasoline-propelled cars, and also hybrids and whatever else happens to come along.”
“What can Trump legally change if he becomes president with the IRA?” Grace Asenov, base metals and energy editor at Fastmarkets asked rhetorically during her presentation at the event. “The quick answer is he is not going to be able to change very much. The IRA is law; anything that the treasury department does through regulation can be changed, but it would take a lot of time, and it would have to be done in a legally defensible way,” she added.
Even so, analysts at the Fastmarkets event believe that even changing the IRA and other legislation would be difficult, a Trump presidency would have a negative impact on EV sector growth. During a scenario analysis, they concluded that another Trump term could have three major implications for EV battery-related policies.
First, Trump may impose stricter regulations on which EV models qualify for subsidies under the IRA, limiting eligibility for the US$7,500 tax credit. Second, his administration could eliminate Environmental Protection Agency vehicle emission standards that are expected to lead to 67 percent of vehicles being electric by 2032.
And lastly, Trump might roll back commitments for 50 percent of the government fleet to be electric by 2030.
“If implemented, these changes could result in 5 percent lower EV sales by 2034,” said Asenov.
If he wants to see the EV and battery supply chain grow in the US, Trump may implement stronger restrictions on Foreign Entity of Concern nations, including China, which dominates the processing of lithium, rare earths and several other critical minerals. China is also the top producer of rare earths and other important commodities.
“He could say, ‘We don’t want to rely on China at all (for critical minerals and battery processing and manufacturing),’” said Asenov, noting that such a decision would slow EV adoption.
Trump’s aversion to Chinese reliance was also brought up during a panel discussion at the Fastmarkets event.
“I don’t think he wants to lose to China on the manufacturing of EVs,” said Howard Klein, cofounder and partner at RK Equity. “I’m relatively optimistic that whoever wins will not make major changes,” he added, noting that southern states have benefited from the subsidies — the same states where Trump has a large base.
With the outcome of the US election still very much up in the air, the Fastmarkets experts spent time sharing ideas on how the IRA and other legislation in the country could be changed for the better.
Steve LeVine, editor of the Electric, would like to see some collaborative measures implemented.
“Who’s the world expert in making batteries and making the chemicals, making the components? It is the Chinese. So if I were to change any part of the IRA, it would be an incentive to bring Chinese expertise into the US to teach Americans how to do that,” he told attendees at the Fastmarkets event.
Asenov noted that Trump could look to close the US$7,500 credit loophole for leased vehicles through which consumers can lease an EV, get the incentive and then return the car after three years.
For his part, Klein said he would like to see more investment in mineral extraction and production.
“More money for mining. There is a lot of funding in the IRA, but no money for mining, just processing,” he said.
Klein went on to note that allocating money for mining could “change the mentality” around the sector and send a positive message to the public about the often-maligned industry. Whether added to the IRA or adopted as standalone investment, the need to secure new and grow existing mined supply is a crucial first step in EV sector growth.
While investment in new mine supply, processing and manufacturing were agreed to be imperative, where that money comes from caused some division amongst the panelists.
As Klein called for IRA funding, David Deckelbaum, analyst at TD Cowe,n took a more “cynical view” of the IRA.
“I don’t think (the IRA is) very pragmatic,” he said. “My criticism would be, especially as you look at the capital flows and attracting capital and investments, investors do not want to invest in something that requires infinite supplementation.”
Deckelbaum went on to explain that he agreed with LeVine’s point, and suggested removing China from the “economy of concern” list to allow materials from China to qualify for investment tax credits.
This would also involve increasing consumer credits and eliminating income limits to boost adoption.
“We should focus on creating demand domestically, rather than imposing restrictions on how manufacturers meet it. Since it’s not feasible to avoid buying materials from China, and investors are reluctant to support companies that can’t compete without government aid, the current approach isn’t sustainable,” he said.
Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
As the world continues to embrace digital currencies and blockchain technology, the cryptocurrency industry is solidifying its position on a broad scale as a key part of the global economy.
Heading into the second half of the year, the US election is expected to have far-reaching implications for the crypto market in America and potentially beyond. Issues such as regulation, taxation and the integration of cryptocurrencies into the mainstream economy will be critical in shaping the future of this dynamic sector.
As the crypto narrative continues to intertwine with the US election cycle, the choices made in the voting booth could well determine the trajectory of this transformative technology. The stage is set for a pivotal moment in the crypto industry’s history, and the decisions made in the next few months will echo far into the future of finance.
While the US election is set to impact the crypto market, the reverse is also true — the industry is already influencing lawmakers at both the federal and state levels as voting day approaches.
The regulatory landscape for the crypto industry in the US is still evolving, and further developments are expected to occur in the coming years. As it stands, various government agencies employ diverse strategies to regulate different aspects of the industry, reflecting their unique mandates and objectives.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is the primary regulator of futures and options contracts in the US. It is of the opinion that certain cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, are commodities due to their decentralized nature and the fact that they are not backed by a government or other central authority.
With cryptocurrencies becoming more mainstream, US lawmakers have been strongly encouraged to create a clear and comprehensive regulatory framework for this rapidly evolving industry.
The Act is similar to FIT21; however, there are also some differences between the two bills in terms of their specific provisions and approaches. For example, FIT21 places a greater emphasis on defining key terms and providing exemptions from duplicative regulations, while the Responsible Financial Innovation Act focuses more on consumer protection and combating illicit finance, goals that align with statements made by the White House.
The Democrat’s presidential nominee is Kamala Harris, who is currently serving in the Biden administration as Vice President. This section will discuss Harris’ own positions on crypto alongside those of the Biden administration.
“Trump looks to Vivek on tech and digital asset policy,” Bratcher said. “When he saw how Vivek captured the Republican voter — and more centrist (voters) than Trump can capture — he’s probably more interested in that (policy).”
Trump appears to be driven by a desire to distinguish himself from political opponents who favor a more active regulatory approach, as well as crypto’s increasing popularity and potential.
Despite crypto’s influence on the campaign trail as recently as one month ago, neither candidate was asked about cryptocurrency, and neither brought it up. Big Tech and artificial intelligence were largely not touched on as well, apart from a brief quip during heated exchanges involving the economy and foreign policy.
Bitcoin’s price fell quickly early in the debate and continued to retreat throughout it. By the time midnight had hit, Bitcoin’s value had fallen to US$56,802, down 1.46 percent from its price at the start of the debate, which coincided with the opening of day trading in Asia. Just before 11:00 am EDT, its price had fallen a further 2 percent to US$55,573, but it bounced back to nearly US$58,000 by 2:25 p.m.
Trump’s statements in recent months suggest a permissive stance toward crypto if he is elected. A Harris administration could be more open and forward-thinking than the cautious approach taken by the current Biden administration, but will likely prioritize careful decision-making.
Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Leave a Reply