Connect with us

Business

Wall Street: Biden’s Tax Policies Would Harm The Stock Market

Avatar

Published

on

Wall Street: Biden’s Tax Policies Would Harm The Stock Market

The November election just months away. With this, Wall Street has started to grapple with the unpleasant thoughts of a Democrat in the Oval Office and new tax policies.

President Trump steered the economy to record low unemployment and the stock market to all-time highs. However, the potential for major headwinds should Joe Biden decide to reverse many of the president’s policies has Wall Street fearing the worst.

What Would a “Blue Wave” Cause?

A “blue wave” with a Democratic president and both the House and Senate controlled by Democrats could mean tax hikes and other legislative actions that slow economic growth and drag on the stock market.

President Trump recently said that a Biden victory would “Crash the market. 401(k)s will be down the tubes, the wealth of the country will be down… They’re going to raise taxes, they’re going to raise regulations, and they’re going to put everyone out of business. It would be a disaster.”

David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Rosenberg Research, agrees. He believes a Biden victory and ultimately higher taxes would harm the markets.

“The implications for the stock market from this shift to higher taxes are generally negative. A drop in the S&P 500 of 10.5% from where it is today is well within reason,” Rosenberg added.

Expectations are that Democrats would increase the capital gains tax for the highest earners. Also expected is a raise in the corporate tax rate. This raise aims to pay for some of the $6 trillion in proposed spending over the next 10 years.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the country hasn’t even had a chance to experience the full benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump signed into law in 2017. Biden may live up to his promises of raising the corporate tax rate. If that happens, the Tax Foundation says the US GDP will be reduced by 1.5%.

Banks’ Warnings

Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are among a handful of Wall Street banks warning that higher tax rates will drag down the stock market.

Michael Wilson, chief U.S. equity strategist at Morgan Stanley, told clients last month that raising the corporate income tax to 35 percent from 21 percent would make “100-150 points on the S&P 500 a baseline for the impact of a tax cut rollback, all else equal.”

David Kostin, chief U.S. equity strategist at Goldman Sachs, called Biden’s tax policy a “larger risk to earnings and consequently to equity prices” than the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic caused the stock market to plunge 34% before rebounding.

A Biden victory in November is seen as a “neutral to slight positive” by the equity strategy team at JPMorgan. The team explained that presidential challengers, like Biden, “typically campaign at an extreme,” but veer back toward the center following the election.

Let hope we never have to find out how detrimental Biden’s tax policies would be for our country and our economy.

Up Next:

Click to comment

Leave a Comment

Business

DOJ Files Suit Against Google Over Anti-Competitive Behavior

Avatar

Published

on

DOJ Files Suit Against Google Over Anti-Competitive Behavior

After a nearly 16-month investigation, the Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google, part of Alphabet. This is the first of likely a handful of lawsuits against one of the FAANG stocks.

The suit alleges that Google has engaged in anticompetitive conduct to preserve monopolies in search and search advertising. It is the most notable lawsuit on the grounds of anticompetitive behavior in nearly 20 years. The last one was when Microsoft had been sued by the government in 1998 accusing the software giant of unlawful monopolization.

The lawsuit alleges that Google is acting as a gatekeeper to the internet. It acts as such by creating exclusionary and interlocking business agreements that prevent competition. For example, the government says Google uses the billions of dollars it collects from advertisers to pay cell phone manufacturers to install Google as their preset, default search engine.

The DOJ lawsuit specifically points out that Google’s search application is preloaded on mobile phones running its popular Android operating system. It also points out the fact that this app can’t be deleted. The lawsuit adds that Google unlawfully prohibits competitors’ search applications from being preloaded on phones under revenue-sharing arrangements.

Keeping an Eye on Tech Companies

Large tech companies, like Alphabet’s Google, along with Facebook, Apple and Amazon, are in the crosshairs of legislators in Washington, D.C., who think that the government should have more control over how the companies operate.

In the U.S., nearly all state attorneys general are separately investigating Google. Eleven state attorneys general, all Republicans, joined the Justice Department’s case.

It’s not just Republicans who have a problem with Google’s actions. Democrats on a House antitrust subcommittee released a report this month saying all four tech giants wield monopoly power and recommending congressional action.

The company’s problems aren’t limited to US regulators, either. European Union regulators have also hit Google with three antitrust complaints and fined it about $9 billion. However, the lawsuits and fines have apparently done little to slow the company down.

Lawsuit Too Broad?

Amazingly, as news broke of the DOJ lawsuit, Google’s share price actually rose.

Fox Business’ Charlie Gasparino says it’s because investors think the lawsuit is too broad and will take years to litigate.

“When the news hit, when they read the complaint, let’s just say “underwhelmed” was the word of the day. Investors we are talking to are downplaying the impact of this suit on Google. They believe the suit, if you look at it, there’s a lot of heated language, but in terms of comparing to other anti-trust suits on tech, such as Microsoft that had really specific issues that Microsoft did to hurt a competitor… this lacks that type of specificity.”

He then added that even a worst-case scenario could be good for Google investors.

“They believe it’s too broad, they believe it’s going to take years to litigate, they believe Google has the financial resources to fight, and here’s the other interesting thing. They actually think that Google, even if you broke it up, and that’s the worst-case scenario, you could get a lot of value out of the sum of its parts,” said Gasparino.

Up Next:

Continue Reading

Business

Rickards: Get Ready For Deflation, And Here’s Where Gold Prices Are Headed

Avatar

Published

on

Rickards: Get Ready For Deflation, And Here’s Where Gold Prices Are Headed

Yesterday we brought you the first part of an interview by James Rickards. In it, he gave his outlook on the stock market. He also shared his viewpoints on why the Federal Reserve can’t create inflation despite printing trillions of dollars.

Today we bring you the second part of the interview, where Rickards discusses why he thinks we are headed towards deflation and not inflation, why gold falls when the stock market falls, and where he sees gold prices headed.

Moving Toward Deflation?

He says we are headed toward deflation despite trillions of dollars in money printing. Rickards thinks it’s because we aren’t spending any of that money.

“The greatest danger in the macro-economy today is deflation, because declining labor force participation, declining productivity, most of all velocity. Velocity is the turnover of money. It doesn’t matter what the money supply is. If there’s not turnover, if there’s not lending and spending, if the people aren’t chasing the goods, you’re not going to get inflation. But velocity is a psychological phenomenon. How do you feel? Do you feel prosperous, do you feel confident, do you want to go out and buy dinner or drinks, or do you feel cautious, do you feel concerned, you saw your neighbor lose her job, you’re worried about losing your job, so you save more,” said Rickards.

He said the savings rate is still at levels well above anything we’ve seen historically here in the US.

“The evidence is people are saving more. We’re in a liquidity trap. Saving was sort of working its way up from 5% to 8%, in April it was 33%. In May it was still 25%, in June it was 17%. So savings can be a good thing in the long run, but in the short run savings comes out of consumption. If I make money I’m either going to spend it or save it. Well if I save more I spend less. So all the signs are pointed to deflation. They can say they want inflation and they can print all the money they want, it doesn’t mean they’re going to get it.”

Gold Buyers

There are two types of gold buyers according to Rickards. The “strong hands” will be around when gold runs to $15,00 per ounce.

“There are two kinds of buyers of gold or investors in gold generally. The strong hands and the weak hands. The strong hands don’t use a lot of leverage, they use cash or capital, they’re in it for the long haul, they’re not day traders, I mean I watch the tape because I’m an analyst, I do a lot of interviews about it and I write about it, but I’m not a day trader. I don’t get too euphoric if gold goes up, I don’t get depressed if it goes down. I know where it’s going in the long run, it’s going in the neighborhood of $15,000 an ounce.”

Not Out of the Ordinary

He doesn’t offer a timeframe for the massive run-up in gold prices. However, he says it isn’t uncommon for gold to sell off along the way.

“That doesn’t have to happen next year or the year after. That’s the trend. I like to remind people, if it’s going to $15,000 an ounce, which it is, it’s got to go to $3,000 – $4,000 – $5000 – $6,000 along the way. So that’s the long term trend, so I don’t worry about the wiggles. As far as the stock market is concerned, this happened in 2008, I remember the worst part of it in 2008 in September, October and November when the stock market was absolutely crashing, gold was going down. And I was getting all these calls, ‘Gold is a safe haven, how come it’s going down?'” he said.

“What happens is in a liquidity crisis, everybody sells everything, especially the weak hands. If you’re leveraged and you’re in the gold futures market and you’re long and the market is collapsing, you’ve got to sell and get out, you’ve got to cut your losses.”

“Strong Hands” Stepping In

When this happens and prices drop, Rickards says the “strong hands” step in and start buying.

“If you’re a leveraged player, you’ve got to either come up with cash for the margin, or you have to sell your position which makes it worse. So what people do is sell gold to get cash to meet the margin call on the stock losses. Or they’re on the wrong side of the gold market and they’re leveraged and they just sell to cut their losses. So it does go down, it’s highly predictable. But the strong hands are waiting. It’s like a lynx or a mountain lion hunt. They don’t stalk their prey, they just sit there and wait and then pounce. Strong hands are watching, they don’t jump in on day one, they wait until it goes down enough and then they come in and buy and it goes right back up again.”

Up Next:

Continue Reading

Business

DOJ Files Antitrust Suit Against Google

Avatar

Published

on

Google Headquarters with bikes on foreground-Antitrust Suit Against Google-ss-featured

Yesterday, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an antitrust suit against Google. The Justice Department alleged that Google maintained a monopoly on internet searches. Its dominance allowed it to cut off rivals from critical distribution channels.

RELATED: Legislative Changes on Tech Companies

Eleven Republican state attorneys general joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs. These are Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Texas.

DOJ Cites Sherman Act of 1890

Under the Sherman Act, DOJ lawyers alleged that Google illegally maintained monopolies. This covered markets for “general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising.” US Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen led the filing of charges. He said that “Google is the gateway to the internet and a search advertising behemoth. It maintained its monopoly power through exclusionary practices that are harmful to competition.”

The lawsuit comes after a House Judiciary report that says some tech act as monopolies. Apart from Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook also got mentioned. The report recommended Congress to update antitrust laws. These changes can help with breaking up businesses.

Within a month, the Justice Department issued a lawsuit against Google. It is a result of a 16-month investigation into company business practices. Google got involved in a 2013 antitrust suit but did not get charged.

Monopoly Power In Online Search

Google allegedly tied up distribution channels for online search and related markets. The suit said Google “foreclosed competition for internet search” through exclusionary agreements. This prevented rivals from achieving the scale to fight Google’s dominance. The DOJ said Google holds 88% of the U.S. search market and 94% of mobile searches. Google allegedly harmed consumers by providing lower quality search and reducing choices.

The DOJ also claimed Google owns more than 70% of the search ads market. It said that the company’s monopoly power lets them charge more. While they charged more, Google provided lower-quality services in the absence of competition.

Exclusionary contracts

Google used exclusionary tactics with distributors of its Android mobile OS. As such, Google also suppressed innovation in the search market. Google allegedly requires phone manufacturers who use Android to agree to certain limits. Android-powered devices that aren’t compliant with Google standards face selling restrictions. The company then provides the same manufacturers access to its “vital proprietary apps.” They do so in exchange for agreeing to carry other Google apps. Under the agreement, the devices should prevent users from deleting certain Google apps.

Apart from exclusivity, Google’s revenue-sharing model for distributors helped expand its dominance. A senior executive described the model as bittersweet.  He said it was“a bitter pill for carriers, and a generous revenue share is a sugar that makes it go down smoother.”

Apple’s partnership

Google’s partnership with Apple is the centerpiece of the DOJ’s allegations. Google allegedly misused its power in an anticompetitive manner. At stake is a major revenue stream for both tech giants.

It’s no secret that Google relies on search traffic from Apple’s iPhones. The search engine is the default service on Apple’s Safari phone browser. This means that consumers get Google search results—and related advertising – automatically. The agency claimed Google “locked up” distribution by entering exclusionary agreements with Apple.

Google responds to the suit

Google Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker responded immediately to the suit via a blog post. He laid out the company’s rebuttal to the DOJ’s claims.

He wrote: “Today’s lawsuit by the Department of Justice is deeply flawed. People use Google because they choose to, not because they’re forced to, or because they can’t find alternatives. This lawsuit would do nothing to help consumers. On the contrary, it would artificially prop up lower-quality search alternatives, raise phone prices, and make it harder for people to get the search services they want to use.”

Walker refuted claims that Google’s arrangement with Apple is exclusive. Rivals also pay to appear in Apple’s Safari. He said Apple chose Google search because they found it as “the best.” He linked a 2018 article where Apple CEO Tim Cook complimented the search engine.

Missed the Main Point

Walker also said that the suit missed the “bigger point.” He argued that consumers choose to use Google’s services because they want to. In case they didn’t, switching default search engines is an easy task to do. Walker pointed to specialized search engines like Expedia, OpenTable, and even Twitter. These companies help people seek specialized information and are available. While Google pays for digital shelf space competitors “are readily available too.” As for agreements, he said that Google’s contracts are industry standard. They offer nothing unusual. 

Watch this as FoxNews reports that the US Department of Justice has filed an antitrust lawsuit against search engine giant Google: 

Do you think Google is a monopoly in search engines/online searches?

Please Select One:

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Do you think that the antitrust suit has merit and that Google might be too big a company? Do you use, or even know, any other search engine other than Google? If not, is that enough proof of the company’s monopolistic behavior? Let us know what you think by sharing your comments below.

Continue Reading

Subscribe To Our Newsletter:

Advertisement

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 The Capitalist. his copyrighted material may not be republished without express permission. The information presented here is for general educational purposes only. MATERIAL CONNECTION DISCLOSURE: You should assume that this website has an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the persons or businesses mentioned in or linked to from this page and may receive commissions from purchases you make on subsequent web sites. You should not rely solely on information contained in this email to evaluate the product or service being endorsed. Always exercise due diligence before purchasing any product or service. This website contains advertisements.

[email]
[email]