“Renew” Your Opinion on Policy Bets

July 11, 2024

During election season, investors are often tempted to position their portfolios based on expectations related to potential changes in government policy. That said, market dynamics in the wake of various political events can be confounding and notoriously difficult to forecast. There is perhaps no better example to support this statement than performance of the energy space over the last seven years.

When Donald Trump assumed the presidency in 2017, his administration sought to rescind many environmental regulations and attain energy independence via the use of fossil fuels. His term saw the approval of multiple controversial oil pipelines, a large expansion of oil and gas leasing, and support for energy development on federal land. Since coming to office in 2021, however, Joe Biden has aimed to reverse many of the energy policies of his predecessor, as well as promote an agenda focused on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the development of renewable energy sources. Based on this information, many readers might have expected robust performance of traditional energy companies during the Trump presidency, as well as more challenged returns for clean energy stocks. The policies of the Biden administration, on the other hand, might have been expected to lead to a reversal of these dynamics. Readers may be surprised to learn, however, that the Energy sector of the S&P 500 Index returned -29.6% during Trump’s term in office, compared to 136.1% since Biden assumed office. Conversely, the S&P Global Clean Energy Index returned 305.9% in the four years of Trump’s presidency but has notched a -54.0% gain during the Biden term.

There are many factors that can help explain these and other surprising performance trends. First, markets tend to be forward-looking in nature, meaning current prices of financial assets usually reflect investor expectations of what is to come in the (sometimes distant) future. Additionally, exogenous shocks can roil securities markets and lead to dynamics that would have otherwise been unexpected based on prevailing conditions and the agendas of those in political office. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic upended supply chains and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine led to increases in the prices of certain commodities, and these developments were largely conducive to positive performance from traditional energy companies despite a renewables-focused U.S. president. Finally, there is the question of natural business and economic cycles, which have tended to ebb and flow regardless of which party controls the White House. All of this is to say that market timing around an election or any other major political event can be a most difficult exercise. Given the upcoming presidential election in the U.S., investors should remain diversified across the asset class spectrum in order to capture market gains and insulate their portfolios against losses, both of the expected and unexpected kind.

Print PDF

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.

Related Content

Three-line chart comparing cumulative returns for MSCI EM Latin America Index, MSCI EAFE Index, and S&P 500 Index, Jan 1, 2026 through April 24, 2026. Dashed line at February 28 demarcates U.S. strikes on Iran. While all three indices dipped after war began, Latin America Index was higher to begin with and remains high. Most recent data point (4/24) for Latin America is 20.36%, EAFE is 5.7%, and S&P 500 is 5.06%. For full dataset, please email marquettemarketing@marquetteassociates.com.

04.27.2026

Let’s Hear It for Latin America

Latin American equity markets have shown remarkable strength in 2026. After a strong start to the year, the MSCI Emerging…

04.23.2026

We’ve Seen This Before

Diversify. Rebalance. Stay invested. Every one of these letters has concluded with that same advice in some shape or form….

Two-line chart showing unemployment rate for All U.S. Workers and Recent College Graduates (Ages 22–27), 12/31/05 to 12/31/25. Up to 2020 period, Recent College Graduates generally had a lower unemployment rate than all U.S. workers category, but since then, the opposite has been true. Lines begin at ~3% to ~5% range in 2005, rose during Global Financial Crisis of '07-'09 to near 10% for All, ~7% for Grads, then both lines declined fairly steadily up to COVID. Peak for both series was 6/30/20, with All at 12.8% and Grads at 13.4%. Most recent data for 12/31/25 is ~4% for All and ~5.5% for Grads. For full dataset, please email marquettemarketing@marquetteassociates.com.

04.20.2026

The Sorrows of Young Workers

Entry-level jobs have traditionally served as the primary bridge between education and stable employment, offering young workers a foothold from…

Combination column and line chart showing Net Duties Received (columns, left-hand axis, ranging $0 to $35 billion) and Effective Tariff Rate (line, right-hand axis, ranging 0 to 12%) monthly, from April 2024 through February 2025. Up to March 2025, both data series held relatively steady, averaging around $7B for net duties received, and 2% for effective tariff rate, but both series have quadrupled since then. Most recent (Feb-26) is $26B and 8%. Please contact us for the full data set at marquettemarketing@marquetteassociates.com.

04.13.2026

Liberation Day: One Year Later

On April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump announced a sweeping set of tariffs on imports into the United States. Dubbed…

04.07.2026

Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives

On March 30, 2026, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued its proposed regulation: Fiduciary Duties in Selecting Designated Investment Alternatives….

Line chart showing commercial & industrial loans as percent of total bank credit since 1980. Peak of line is September 1982 at 38%; since then there has been a steady decrease, with several peaks following global crises, with February 2026 datapoint at 21%. Basel I labeled at 1988, Basel II labeled at 2004, Basel III labeled at 2010. For full dataset, please contact marquettemarketing@marquetteassociates.com.

04.06.2026

Regulation Abdication?

The Basel capital framework was created to ensure that banks maintain sufficient capital to absorb losses and reduce the risk…

More articles

Subscribe to Research Email Alerts

Research Email Alert Subscription

Research alerts keep you updated on our latest research publications. Simply enter your contact information, choose the research alerts you would like to receive and click Subscribe. Alerts will be sent as research is published.

We respect your privacy. We will never share or sell your information.

Thank You

We appreciate your interest in Marquette Associates.

If you have questions or need further information, please contact us directly and we will respond to your inquiry within 24 hours.

Contact Us >