2024 Election Could be a “Wash”
The Impact of Elections on the National Housing Market by Carole VanSickle Ellis Conventional wisdom states that uncertainty in almost any element of the economy will usually result in “bad news” or short-term negative behavior in most financial markets. Presidential elections have historically been considered a prime example of how uncertainty affects investor behavior, with financial markets typically responding to the election process and months following the actual vote with less movement and lower gains. While this holds true for many areas of industry, the housing market seems to stand apart from the trend. New research published by the Yale School of Management and Northwestern University could hold the key to identifying how any given election cycle could affect housing on national and local scales. “There is good reason to believe that just uncertainty by itself is bad, but we also know that when there is high volatility, there is also high opportunity,” said study lead Stefano Giglio, Yale’s Frederic D. Wolfe professor of finance and management. Although the study focused primarily on financial markets, the research team said the broad array of sources from which it drew data for analysis meant the study “has implications for both financial markets and the broader real economy.” In financial markets, investors tend to react to the potential for volatility by “shoring up” portfolio defenses, sometimes paying “heavy premiums to insure against the risk of an actual loss.” However, in nonfinancial markets, such as real estate, investors actually tend to take the opposite approach, attempting to insure “against periods of low volatility,” Giglio said. He concluded, “Periods of high uncertainty are not necessarily ‘bad’ economic states, but possibly times of innovation, creative destruction, competition, and, ultimately, growth.” Sharper Business Solutions founder Gary Harper, whose company helps entrepreneurs and real estate investors scale their businesses, agreed with Giglio’s assessment that high uncertainty is not necessarily bad for business as long as investors are cognizant of how external factors, such as consumer confidence, affect their company’s performance during election years. “Consumer confidence often fluctuates during election years, so it is important to gauge market sentiment and adjust your strategies accordingly,” Harper said. He suggested implementing strategies that emphasize stable, long-term investments during times of broader economic uncertainty. “While election years can bring volatility, they also present unique opportunities for savvy investors,” he said. Monick Halm, a California-based real estate investor and founder of the REI Goddesses mastermind, observed election-year reticence on the part of some investors could represent opportunity for others. “While others are holding back due to fear or uncertainty, there may be less competition in the market, which can lead to more favorable buying conditions,” she said. Halm continued, “This is the time when strategic investors step in, take advantage of potential price adjustments, and set themselves up for future gains. The key is not to get distracted by the ‘noise’ or the headlines. Instead, focus on your long-term goals and stay adaptable.” Establishing Causal Relationships Between Politics, Consumer Confidence & Housing Although consumer sentiment surveys have been around for roughly three-quarters of a century (the Consumer Confidence Index, or CCI, made its debut in 1967), economists have historically struggled to establish clear causal relationships between sentiment and specific areas of consumption. However, since 1991, one relationship has emerged as an increasingly powerful driver of consumption of everything from household appliances to home purchases: a November win for a consumer’s preferred political party and increased short-term spending. Hector Sandoval, director of the Economic Analysis Program and a research assistant professor at the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), explained that a party shift, in particular, seems to improve consumer sentiment and increase spending on the part of the party entering office. As politics become increasingly partisan and consumers’ feelings on the topic become increasingly passionate, the fallout for local housing markets could be stark, particularly in markets where there is a marked political shift in the wake of November’s elections. Sandoval’s research focuses primarily on consumer sentiment and spending within the state of Florida, where there have been relatively few major power shifts in the last 30 years at a state level. As a result, he said, his team was unable to determine “a statistically significant relationship” when it came to gubernatorial elections, but a study of national politics revealed that the “widening gap between Democrats and Republicans” is affecting actual consumer spending. Based on their beliefs, consumers were likely to make larger purchases when their preferred party was in power, with this trend becoming more pronounced when the preferred party was reentering office after a period of absence. Interestingly, if Sandoval’s conclusions hold on a national level, the 2024 election might not necessarily have a substantial net impact on consumer spending or the national housing market simply because the nation is divided relatively evenly over the perceived unsuitability of theopposing candidates. For former president Donald Trump, in particular, it may surprise readers to discover that the country is split roughly down the middle when it comes to his presidential performance. Pew reported in March 2021 that 38% of Americans believed he had made “progress toward solving major problems facing the country during his administration,” while 37% said he “made these problems worse.” The remaining respondents said he had either “tried but failed” (15%) or “did not address [major problems]” (10%). At that time, Pew analysts observed that although “Republicans and Democrats offer starkly different assessments of Trump’s presidential legacy,” the actual numbers indicated public sentiment could be considered something of a wash, since 47% ranked the Trump administration as “great,” “good,” or “average,” and 53% ranked it as “poor” or “terrible.” In 2024, these sentiments became more passionate (and more evenly split), with 51% of Americans rating the former president “very coldly” and 49% stating their feelings were “very warm,” “warm,” or “neutral.” As a result, if studies like Sandoval’s hold true for the 2024 election, one half of the population’s shifting sentiments and spending patterns are likely to cancel
Read More
