This podcast isn’t personal advice. If you’re not sure what’s right for you, seek advice. Tax rules can change and benefits depend on personal circumstances.
This podcast isn’t personal advice. If you’re not sure what’s right for you, seek advice. Investments rise and fall in value, so investors could make a loss.
Full podcast episode transcript
Susannah Streeter: Hello and welcome to Switch Your Money On from Hargreaves Lansdown. I’m Susannah Streeter – Head of Money and Markets.
Sarah Coles: And I’m Sarah Coles – Head of Personal Finance.
Normally, at this stage – ahead of a Budget – we’d be telling you that we’re just getting stuck into the speculation – but, this time around, we’ve been debating possible changes since back in May when the general election was announced.
Susannah Streeter: Yes – there is more than one Prime Minister who hasn’t lasted as long as this Budget speculation! But things have evolved, so we will be catching up with just where we are and what it means for investors in the UK.
Sarah Coles: We’ll also be casting our eye over the picture in the US – as we head towards the election there – and see what impact all that is having on companies and markets, in an episode we’re calling ‘Power and Money.’
Susannah Streeter: We’re going to talk to Ben Page – Chief Executive of Ipsos – who has made a science of polling and exploring opinions and behaviours around elections.
Ben, it’s great to have you with us on the podcast – politics both sides of the pond must have been keeping you very busy this year!
Ben Page: It has – but, remember, politics is about 0.1% of our business – so it’s fascinating, but it’s not the whole world.
Sarah Coles: It’ll be really great to explore a bit more later in the podcast. We’ll also hear from Senior Equity Researcher, Matt Britzman, who’ll look at some of the listed companies affected by the US election.
Susannah Streeter: And our Head of Platform Investments, Emma Wall, will be getting the fund management perspective on the US.
But, before we head over there, we wanted to round up where we are when it comes to Budget speculation here in the UK, and what it means for investors.
There are a few areas worth touching on.
Sarah Coles: Yes – so, during the election, the Labour Party ruled out a number of possible tax changes, including income tax, National Insurance for individuals, and VAT. Since then, it’s said it won’t raise taxes for working people – and all that has raised the spectre of a wealth tax. When Rachel Reeves said there would be no new, specific wealth tax, it focused attention on existing taxes and wealth and potential changes.
Susannah Streeter: Pensions have been the source of much speculation – and, although some reports suggest changes to pensions tax relief have been ruled out, there are still questions around possible changes to tax-free cash and the rules that currently allow people to leave their pension free of inheritance tax after their death.
Sarah Coles: On inheritance tax more broadly, there’ll be people who are worried the Government could revisit nil rate bands. These play a big part in protecting the smaller estates – and tweaks can’t be ruled out – but it would be incredibly controversial, which might dissuade the Government from this approach.
Susannah Streeter: It might also look at rules around spouses and married partners. Anything you leave to your spouse or civil partner is free of inheritance tax – and, if you pass everything to them, you also pass on your nil rate bands. It means, when the second person in a married couple dies, in some cases, they can leave up to £1m free of tax.
Changing these rules would risk a backlash – not least because paying tax on assets left to a spouse could mean bereaved spouses forced out of their home by HMRC. This might push it down the list of options.
Sarah Coles: There are specific types of relief available to farmers and owners of family businesses (and also investors in the alternative investment market). However, the Government would need to consider the implications of change here very carefully, not least on AIM investment.
Susannah Streeter: Then there are the questions around capital gains tax. The Government could choose to raise the rate of tax. There have been rumours it could be hiked to match income tax rates, which would at least double the rate investors pay on capital gains.
It might also consider charging capital gains tax on death. If you pass on investments outside an ISA or pension after your death, there’s no capital gains tax to pay – so it effectively resets to zero. The Government might consider this relatively low-hanging fruit. If you’re sitting on gains, this could raise concerns.
Sarah Coles: There are some things people could think about doing if they’re concerned, including paying into ISAs and pensions to ensure capital gains tax isn’t a concern in future – realising gains gradually and taking advantage of the annual capital gains tax allowance, and leaving gifts to family now. They can give £3,000 under the annual gift allowance, which is outside your estate immediately for inheritance tax purposes, and larger gifts to anyone which pass from your estate after seven years.
Susannah Streeter: With speculation high about capital gains tax increases – and reducing tax-free allowances for wealthier earners and pensioners – there is some nervousness ahead of the Budget about what the implications will be for personal finances and the broader economy.
Sarah Coles: This is particularly the case, given that consumer and business confidence has taken a hit amid warnings from the Government that things are gonna get worse before they get better.
Susannah Streeter: This showed up in net outflows from UK equity funds. Although immediately after the election results, net outflows in the month of July were £207m – the smallest figure in three years according to fund network, Calastone – they rose again in September, with net outflows hitting £666m.
The upcoming Budget and its potential repercussions can’t be viewed in isolation. The economy’s also likely to feel the continuing benefits as interest rates head lower, with the Bank of England hinting that more aggressive cuts could be on the way.
Sarah Coles: So, while the Budget may be a significant pound-pincher for some wealthier individuals and companies, the pledge to help working people, while increasing spending on health, housing, and infrastructure development, may create more optimism for other sectors in a lower-interest rate environment.
Susannah Streeter: Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has said the Government will prioritise increased investment in major projects in this month’s Budget. With a tinkering of self-imposed borrowing rules now expected, it could give extra winds in the sails of major engineering companies.
The recent snapshot of the UK construction sector – provided by the S&P Global Construction Purchasing Managers Index – showed it grew at its fastest rate in more than two years in September amid a sharp uplift in major projects.
The bond markets are going to be on alert as to just how much the Government will borrow to invest. There have been warnings that there is a limited demand for new UK debt – and there could be increased nervousness if there is an extra big chunk of borrowing.
Of course, the UK is far from alone in having politics play a massive role in markets around an election. And, with the US election looming on 5th November, investors are keenly watching how the potential outcomes could have an impact on various industries – and it’s really interesting to gauge public opinion.
Sarah Coles: Yes – our survey of 2,000 people – run by Opinium in September this year – shows that 42% of people reckon Kamala Harris would be better for increasing investment in US businesses, and 46% for the US economy in general. This compares to attitudes towards Donald Trump – only 24% thought he’d be better for increasing investment, and 21% thought he’d be better off for the overall economy.
Susannah Streeter: And, when it comes to global economic security, 49% of those polled thought a Kamala Harris presidency would be preferable – while just 20% thought Trump would be better.
But there are plenty of undecideds – and those views were canvassed in the UK. In the US, the polls are looking a little different – and to find out just how much, let’s bring back in Ben now from Ipsos.
Ben – how different do you think American voters’ views are to those in our Opinium survey when it comes to the overall economy?
Ben Page: Americans tend to think that Donald Trump would be superior to the Democrats on the economy. The thing you’ve got to remember is that, if the American election was being held in the rest of the world – and not in America – Donald Trump would have been laughed out of court and long gone, but things are very different inside America.
Sarah Coles: The other finding that this survey showed is that the UK thinks that Kamala Harris would be more positive for things like global security. Is that very different to the US as well?
Ben Page: Yes – the Europeans, in particular, are very strongly anti-Trump. There are one or two members of the Conservative Party who say that they think he would be splendid – including our former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson – but the vast majority of the British population – and the French, German, etc, populations – are all pretty anti-Donald Trump.
Inside America though, it’s a completely different story – and he may well win.
Sarah Coles: Right now, who is ahead – what are the polls telling us?
Ben Page: Kamala Harris is narrowly ahead in the popular vote. I think all of us people involved in polling are a little bit scarred by 2016 and 2020, where the polls tended to overstate the Democrats by 3-4 points. So, if she’s only 3 points ahead, that’s nowhere near enough. To know that she’s going to win, I personally would need to see her at 8-10 points ahead. And, secondly, you have to remember that the American election isn’t one person-one vote – because it’s about the electoral college – and the smaller, more rural states – which tend to support Donald Trump – have an outsized influence.
So, you can pile up votes in California and New York – which is, of course, what the Democrats do – but it doesn’t matter because that just gives you a number of votes inside the electoral college – and, if you double your share, you don’t get double the votes inside the electoral college for California.
So, at the moment, it’s very close in the national polls. He’s well ahead on immigration – and up to 60% of Americans say they want mass deportations – which means, if they actually did it, concentration camps. Huge damage to the economy – but they say they want it – and he’s also 5, 8 points ahead on the economy, itself – despite some economists saying that the Inflation Reduction Act and some of the subsidies that the Democrats have brought in have actually stimulated the economy.
Nevertheless, people have rose-tinted spectacles about Donald Trump’s time as president when it comes to the economy.
Sarah Coles: In elections – when voters are weighing up the different pros and cons – how much attention are they paying to things like economic issues? Is it all about economics, or is it all about these mass deportations?
Ben Page: The economy is the number one issue – so it’s about inflation and the cost of living. And, if you look at the ads that Donald Trump is running in some of these swing states, it’s all about how your coffee now costs about 60% more than it did when Donald Trump was in power – and how your petrol now costs twice as much.
But immigration is also there – and, of course, it’s different for the Republican voters – and there’s around 45% of them are people who are thinking of voting for Donald Trump. It’s all about immigration – and, for the Democrat voters, it’s all about preserving democracy – because Donald Trump has said quite a few things to suggest that you might not need to vote ever again if he wins.
Sarah Coles: In terms of this particular election, are there more undecided voters than usual?
Ben Page: Not particularly – if anything, it’s maybe even slightly less. The thing about Donald Trump is people have made up their minds. Some people have decided they love him – whatever he does. He may be a rogue – or a rascal – but he’s their rogue or rascal – and he’s on their side, as they see it.
You can reach your own conclusions about whether tax cuts for billionaires help the common man – or woman. That’s basically the position. There’s only a very small group of swing voters to focus on – and, of course, it will all come down to seven states – places like Pennsylvania – that are going to make all the difference.
You can actually say that this entire election is about – under some estimates – literally only 50,000 Americans, who are going to have to make up their mind – and that will be enough to swing it one way or another for Kamala or for Donald.
Sarah Coles: In terms of what happens between now and then, d’you think there are any particular things that could change that would push people one way or the other?
We had the interest rate cut in September – d’you think that’s helped?
Ben Page: What’s interesting about America – and, to a certain extent, the UK – is that the realities of the economy – the actual level of unemployment – the actual level of growth – have now been replaced by people’s own political beliefs.
So, if you’re a Democrat, you think the economy’s going quite well – and, if you’re a Republican, you think it’s going badly – and none of these facts about actual interest rates really seem to work for the Democrats. And, actually, the debates – where it’s generally agreed that Kamala Harris won her debate with Trump – that didn’t change anybody’s mind – because the minds are made up. So, it’s going to come down to an incredibly small group of people.
It’s very hard now to imagine any amazing revelation on either side that would shift it. So, instead, what you’re going to see is huge amounts of money – hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into advertising to get the vote out – and particularly in these swing states.
Sarah Coles: In a world, where everything is so polarised – is that something that comes across in the polls? If someone’s putting a cross in a box, does it matter?
Ben Page: First of all, do remember that not everywhere is like the United States. So, Britain is more fragmented than polarised.
Yes – in the United States, there is this incredible polarisation, and it’s pretty extraordinary how deep it now is.
Sarah Coles: Looking over at the UK, things don’t seem to be going terribly well when it comes to public attitudes towards the Government. How quickly can those things change – and is it the case of, ‘We’ve gotta wait for things to get better’ – or d’you think that people have already decided?
Ben Page: They were not particularly optimistic about Labour’s chances – and that means that any missteps get massively amplified.
Here, we’re talking about some suits and some glasses – we’re getting terribly upset about that. I think the bottom line is trust in politicians in at an all-time low – so expectations are pretty low. People know that the country needs money spent on it – they want growth – but they also feel that they’re already taxed as much as they want to be taxed.
Labour have painted themselves into a corner. We’re all now waiting for this Budget – but I think, for Labour – they’ve got this huge majority – but, from a relatively low turn-out. The one saving grace – from a Labour point of view – is that the Conservatives are even more disliked than they are.
That will at least, in some ways, buy Labour a little bit of time to sort out its delivery. But I was disappointed to hear that Morgan McSweeney – who has just ousted Sue Gray – and the power behind the throne inside Downing Street is talking about being permanently in campaign mode.
It’s not campaigning we need – we need, unfortunately, delivery. We want to know how our hospitals, railways, schools are going to work better than they do at the moment – and how we’re going to get people better-paid jobs and boost UK productivity. You don’t do that by campaigning.
Sarah Coles: It does seem very difficult to put forward a very positive view of a tax increase, but it does seem to be something that, over in the US, Donald Trump has managed to succeed with. But talking about increasing tariffs has been very popular. D’you think that’s the sort of thing that could take off around the world?
Ben Page: Well, you can say, ‘We’re gonna stop all these people bringing in things and making people lose their jobs here,’ but the people who will end up paying for tariffs will probably be the American people because a lot of things will cost more. But, overall, I’ll go with my economist friends – nearly all of whom say that, ultimately, a world that has every big country with tariffs, generally, is poorer than one that doesn’t do that – and has more free trade.
Sarah Coles: There’s a lot to watch at the moment – I imagine you’re gonna be kept very busy keeping an eye on it all.
Ben Page: Remember, we do have 20,000 people working at Ipsos, so I don’t have to do it all myself. In a way, it’s fascinating, but we do face some huge challenges. Most people are concerned – all over the world and in Britain – that governments won’t do enough to look after them in the years ahead.
I think the massive problem that all politicians have to try and solve in Britain – and in America – is that, in both countries, people believe that the normal state of affairs is that each generation is richer than the one that came before it – and, in Britain, that is no longer true – and people are very angry about it.
It’s also true in America – and the question is, ‘How do you keep that endless escalator of growth going?’
Susannah Streeter: Thanks, Ben – there is clearly an awful lot to watch for – not least what the impact could be in various sectors.
Now, when it comes to energy, a Trump win looks set to be a net positive for traditional energy. Trump’s policies are likely to favour fossil fuels promoting deregulation in the oil, gas, and coal industries.
This could lead to a surge in new drilling projects and infrastructure development benefitting companies involved in traditional energy sectors. However, given all that extra supply, there’s a consensus that oil prices may be lower.
Sarah Coles: Meanwhile, Kamala Harris is expected to push for an aggressive transition to clean energy.
Policies supporting solar, wind, and electric vehicle infrastructure can provide significant incentives for energy companies involved in renewable energy.
Susannah Streeter: When it comes to financial stocks, Trump is expected to bring a continued focus on deregulation – and lower taxes under Trump could bolster large banks and investment companies.
A lighter regulatory environment might reduce compliance costs and stimulate capital markets through favourable policies.
Sarah Coles: Whereas Harris could pursue stronger financial regulations, emphasising consumer protection and reducing systemic risk. Increased compliance requirements could raise operational costs for large financial institutions – and proposed tax hikes on corporation and the wealthy might also impact profitability within the sector.
Susannah Streeter: Let’s take a look now at infrastructure and industrial as well.
A Trump win is seen as a net positive for traditional infrastructure. His plans might centre on conventional projects – like roads, bridges, and airports – so companies involved in construction, industrial manufacturing, and defence could see increased opportunities and government contracts.
Sarah Coles: By contrast, Harris will likely priorities green infrastructure initiatives – investing in clean energy projects, electric vehicle charging networks, and public transportation.
Businesses specialising in sustainable technology and renewable energy could benefit from federal support, while traditional industries might face new challenges.
Susannah Streeter: And then, there is tech – a huge driver of US stock markets.
A Trump administration looks set to maintain a hands-off approach to tech regulation, which could benefit large tech companies.
However, ongoing trade tensions with countries like China – and the potential for tariffs – could pose risks to companies with international supply chains or markets.
Sarah Coles: Harris, on the other hand, could advocate for increased regulation and antitrust actions against big tech companies.
Potential measures could include breaking up monopolies or enforcing stricter data privacy laws.
While this could challenge the big tech giants, smaller tech companies might gain from a more level playing field.
Susannah Streeter: So, with all of that in mind, let’s drill down to the impact on a number of listed companies – and Matt Britzman has been doing just that.
Let’s start with a name that feels like it could do well no matter who wins – and that’s Microsoft.
Matt Britzman: That’s right. Microsoft’s long-term trajectory seems well-supported regardless of which way the election goes. The company’s broad exposure across cloud computing, productivity software, and AI positions it as a key player in multiple growth areas.
Azure continues to grow, with demand for cloud infrastructure showing resilience even amid broader macro concerns. And let’s not forget that AI opportunity – Microsoft’s partnership with OpenAI gives it a head start in integrating generative AI across it’s suite of services, which should drive further adoption of its products.
Sarah Coles: So, the company’s well-diversified, but is there any specific reason why they’re better insulated from election outcomes compared to other names?
Matt Britzman: The key point here is the Microsoft business model is anchored in segments that benefit from long-term structural growth, rather than being overly dependent on policy changes.
For example, Azure’s continued expansion is driven by the trend of digital transformation – something companies need to invest in whether or not corporate taxes or interest rates change. Even if we do see shifts in regulation or fiscal policy, the underlying demand for cloud infrastructure, cybersecurity, and AI solutions should remain strong.
Susannah Streeter: It sounds like Microsoft isn’t something that utterly relies on the political landscape.
Matt Britzman: Exactly right. Whether it’s a Harris administration pushing for increased infrastructure spend – which could indirectly boost demand for cloud services – or a potential Trump comeback with a focus on reducing corporate regulations – Microsoft’s core drivers remain intact.
The key risk is expectation from here – this isn’t a cheap stock, and its increasing investment in AI means it needs to consistently deliver or risk disappointing investors.
Sarah Coles: Now, let’s move to Ashtead. Before we dive in, can you just remind us what Ashtead does?
Matt Britzman: Sure. It’s one of the largest equipment rental companies, providing industrial and construction equipment to a wide range of sectors. The business model is largely based on renting out heavy machinery, with the vast majority of its revenue coming from the US, so the political landscape can have a material impact – despite this being a UK-listed name.
Susannah Streeter: How is Ashtead positioned in the current environment?
Matt Britzman: It’s getting back on track. That’s after a tough few quarters – where overspending during a market slowdown led to some setbacks – but things are now stabilising. Growth has slowed compared to last year’s record levels, but the underlying business remains strong.
Sarah Coles: And, with the US being such a major part of the business, how’s it looking across the pond?
Matt Britzman? Recent policy decisions mean the region has several structural tailwinds – like the onshoring of supply chains and government-led infrastructure expansion. If Trump were to win, we might see a renewed focus on traditional infrastructure spending, which would be a benefit to Ashtead. As a large-scale operator, it’s in better shape than some smaller competitors to capture big chunks of these larger-scale projects.
Overall, we remain optimistic about Ashtead’s long-term potential. I think it could be well-positioned to benefit from a new US administration that focuses on infrastructure spending.
The valuation has ticked higher this year despite some softer growth – so that does increase the chances of a poor reaction to any missteps.
Susannah Streeter: For the final pick, I think you have a housebuilder for us?
Matt Britzman: That’s right. Turning to a name that could benefit from a Harris win, we have D.R. Horton – which is a giant in the US housing market. Harris has been vocal about offering support to the housing market – in part by committing to build 3 million new homes, but also through other actions like incentives to new buyers.
As American’s largest new home builder by volume, Horton looks well-placed to capitalise on any federal push to increase the housing supply.
Sarah Coles: What sets D.R. Horton apart from other home builders?
Matt Britzman: There are a few – and enviable margins stand out as one of those. It’s among the highest in the industry – and that kind of efficiency is key if they’re going to meet increased demand for housing.
It also has a broad customer base. Its homes are aimed at different price points – from first-time buyers to growing families – and even luxury buyers as well – which allows it to [ph. adopt 23:56] to shifts in demand across the market.
With Harris’s plans for more affordable housing, Horton’s focus on first-time buyers puts them in a strong position to benefit directly from government support – like first-time buyer assistance or tax incentives for sellers.
Susannah Streeter: Thank you, Matt – the US election is definitely going to make a major difference to an awful lot of listed businesses.
Sarah Coles: And this will have an impact on funds investing in the region too.
Let’s bring in Emma Wall – our Head of Platform Investments at HL – who’s been discussing the sector in detail with Ziad Gergi – Head of Multi Manager Funds here at HL.
Emma Wall: We’re going to talk about the US election and the potential impact on stock markets. Obviously, we’ll caveat that with, ‘You have no crystal ball – I have no crystal ball’ – but we can analyse the policies – the candidates – even the potential volatility of the markets at the election.
What impact – just the election, itself – never mind the outcome – d’you expect to have on the US stock market?
Ziad Gergi: It is very difficult to position, given how close it is. The level of deficits that the US is currently having – the manoeuvre for both candidate is quite tricky. But, overall, if we look into the programmes – from what we know and what has been announced – it seems like Donald Trump’s programme... there’s more spending, for instance – also cutting corporate taxes again.
Both strategies – or policies – are supportive with potentially President Trump having slightly more ambitious spending policy.
Emma Wall: And what about regulation? There’s been quite a lot of reporting around a few particular sectors: the tech sector – financial sector. What relaxing regulation – which seems to be what Donald Trump is in favour of – versus potential additional regulation – which Kamala Harris seems to be in favour of... Have you thought about the sector-by-sector impact of their potential policies?
Ziad Gergi: At this level, it depends on how things are going to be implemented – for instance, we know that the tariff trade could be beneficial for some sectors, but it would be detrimental on other sectors. All really depends on how other countries going to react to it.
But, if we look into the high level – clearly, we’ve seen Donald Trump more supportive to things like technology – the cryptocurrency type of event. And we know, from his first presidency, that his approach and his narrative was to reduce the burden of deregulation.
So, without a doubt, a Trump administration will be perceived as more supportive for the corporates in general – and will try to reduce deregulation. Something slightly different – what we’re seeing currently – in the current administration. We’ve just seen, for instance, Alphabet or Google being looked at by the regulator – so I think the Harris administration could be perceived as an extension of the Biden administration – would probably be more looking into these type of dominant behaviour by some of the companies – and might be perceived as less favourable to the technology sector.
Emma Wall: There is also some light between the two candidates in terms of global policy, isn’t there? I’m thinking here about trade tariffs – and, potentially, the way that they might approach what could be quite volatility-inducing countries’ presidents! – such as China – such as Russia.
So, what’s the difference between the two major candidates in terms of foreign policy – and the impact that would potentially have on global stock markets?
Ziad Gergi: The two candidates have quite a different view on pretty much all the policies!
One thing they probably both have in common is to have a relatively tougher stance against China – with there being even more focus around how they should be dealing with the competition from Chinese companies. And also, one thing in common is that they both have a little bit of ‘America-First’ type of approach, defending the local manufacturing and the businesses.
Having said that, trying to predict how a trade war – or tariffs – is going to impact the economy is difficult because we don’t know how the other countries are going to react to these. But we’ve seen from Trump’s presidency that, sometimes, things like that could lead to some additional inflation, locally – and it doesn’t really have major, substantial impact on global trade because we know that the whole world is still depending on trade and countries exchanging with each other.
The main difference is on foreign policy – so Russia supporting or not supporting. We know that Kamala Harris will most probably have the same continuation of the Biden administration – whereas we know that probably Trump will be engaging and discussing with Russia – which might have an implication on Europe in terms of energy policy. So, most likely, a Trump presidency might be slightly tougher on Europe and its position against Russia.
Emma Wall: I think it’s also fair to say that there’s a potential for volatility – probably with either candidate. But, with Trump, in particular – we saw significant volatility when he was last in office – because of the nature of the way that he unveiled potential policies, attitudes towards other global leaders. The fourth quarter – one of the worst quarters on record for US equities when Trump was in office – driven quite a lot just by the tweets that he was making against President Xi.
Should we expect then – if Trump is successful – to have that continued volatility in the market?
Ziad Gergi: I believe so – although the market and the world has already seen how Trump’s style is in terms of the presidency. So, we should be prepared for a continuation of the style. I do think that’s the market focusing a little bit on the announcement done on social media. I believe we will see this back and causing volatility or not – depending on the scale of the announcement – but I do believe that any announcement through this type of medium – and through the social media – will definitely create some volatility, just because it’s difficult to interpret through a tweet what a logic is – and having further details – which, usually, the market then to not liking a lot of uncertainty – so that definitely creates some volatility.
Emma Wall: We should end this conversation by saying an election is a short-term event – and even, actually, politics is reasonably short-term. A four-year term is a shorter term that we would ever encourage people to invest for – investing being a five-year-plus horizon.
So, US equities should form part of all well-diversified portfolios – and, difficult as it is, look through the noise of the election – and leave the picking of the points to invest through that volatility to the professionals.
Ziad Gergi: Absolutely – and you mentioned I manage also a multi-asset funds and diversification is a key rule. It’s important to keep the diversification. Elections can bring volatility, but let’s not forget that we invest for the long-term – and, when we focus on the fundamentals of the investment that we are choosing, I think it will sustain and will deliver a much better outcome than focusing on specific events and things that could trigger volatility.
Emma Wall: Thank you very much, Ziad.
Sarah Coles: That was Emma Wall talking to Ziad Gergi – Head of Multi Manager Funds at Hargreaves Lansdown – and please do bear in mind that these are the views of the fund manager and are not individual stock recommendations.
Susannah Streeter: You’re listening to Switch Your Money On from Hargreaves Lansdown – and, before we go, there is time for a quick fact of the week. It is staying on the political theme – given that’s such a big focus of our podcast this week.
I should start by taking you back to those shortest-serving UK Prime Ministers. Liz Truss was obviously the shortest at 45 days, but – in case you were wondering who else didn’t last as long as this speculation about the Budget – it was George Canning in 1827, who had the very good excuse of having actually died in office.
We mentioned the research we did, asking people about the two main presidential candidates and what they meant for companies, markets, and global security. And, if you drill down a bit further into that data, it does show that – while Kamala Harris came out on top in every area – of those that did choose Donald Trump, the younger people were, the more likely they were to have faith in him. The highest score came among those aged 18-34, who thought Donald Trump would be best for increasing investment in US businesses.
So, how many of them thought this: was it a fifth, a quarter, or a third?
Sarah Coles: I can’t imagine it’s particularly high, so I’m gonna go with a fifth.
Susannah Streeter: It was actually much higher. It was a third – although slightly more thought that Kamala Harris would be better for business – which is also an interesting finding.
Sarah Coles: Yes – the US election is gonna be a critical watch for all sorts of reasons.
Susannah Streeter: That’s all from us for this time – but, before we go, we do need to remind you that this was recorded on 14th October 2024 and all information was correct at the time of recording.
Sarah Coles: Nothing in this podcast is personal advice – you should seek advice if you’re not sure what’s right for you. Investments and any income they produce can rise and fall in value, so you could get back less than you invest, and past performance is not a guide to the future.
Susannah Streeter: Yes – this is not advice or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any investment. No view is given on the present or future value or price of any investment, and investors should form their own view on any proposed investment.
Sarah Coles: And this hasn’t been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and is considered a marketing communication.
Susannah Streeter: Non-independent research is not subject to FCA rules prohibiting dealing ahead of research. However, HL has put controls in place (including dealing restrictions, physical and information barriers) to manage potential conflicts of interest presented by such dealing.
Sarah Coles: You can see our full non-independent research disclosure on our website for more information.
So, all that’s left is for me to thank our guests: Ben, Ziad, Matt, Emma, and our Producer, Elizabeth Hotson.
Susannah Streeter: Thank you very much for listening. We’ll be back again soon – goodbye!