Wall Street dialogues: What did the first 100 days of President Donald Trump leave us?

Gordon Gekko: Trump, this time, has been more faithful to himself. Trump 1.0 depended a lot on the one they will say, on the opinion of qualified third parties, on the actions of government experts (who made containment). And what the bag said, which was the reverential oracle consulted by the first -time President. He provided the measure of the quality of his government management.

GG: Yes. Now it is a faithful copy of his ideas, of those he was at 35 years old (Bob Lighthizer Dixit). Of which he could not apply in his first mandate because he did not dare to do it or because they put sticks on the wheel. Nobility forces, what Trump is doing is what he promised in campaign. Wall Street like or not.

P.: Wall Street does not like. But it is what people voted.

GG.: As is. Although we already said that the population voted this agenda, but not necessarily its consequences, which are different from what is promised.

P.: You have to go back to Richard Nixon in the 70s to find in the first 100 days a higher fall in the bag. Trump 1.0 rose 5.3%; The current version collapsed 7.3%. Nixon had sunk 9.7%. Maybe losing the fear of Wall Street was not so good business.

GG: Trump has a response to this back. “No Pain, no Gain.” Without sacrifice there will be no improvement. “We come to change the country. The Chinese are a vision of one hundred years, we cannot look at everything to quarter.” Therefore, the fluctuations of the bag. Or, at least, that did until the day of liberation, on April 2.

P.: When he launched the great operation of reciprocal tariffs, which he had to put in the freezer days later.

GG: Nothing more genuine than Trump with these banners and the detailed menu of country tariffs by country. Nothing more disastrous, too. All at the speed of lightning.

P.: Do you think there was a before and after?

GG: That is also very clear. What Wall Street said once again imported. From there, the reverse. Because if not, fire turned on.

P.: The S&P 500 fell 7.3% in Trump’s first 100 days. But before almost 20% collapsed as a consequence of the resounding failure of the day of liberation. What came after the rise in reciprocal tariffs was placed in the “freezer” has been very positive. For example, the Nasdaq recovered all the loss caused by the ads on April 2. This moderate Trump, under the strong influence of the Treasury Secretary, Scott Besent, is not so harmful. Expectations are very negative. And perhaps an important detail is overlooked. The policy changed. Or isn’t it?

GG: In these 100 days of vertigo, we attend three very different dynamics.

Recall that Wall Street celebrated Trump’s campaign since September, and his victory in November, and knew how to reach new absolute records. And so it was also after its assumption on January 20.

P.: The last record of the Stock Exchange dates from February 19.

GG: That’s how it is. That initial Trump promised to fulfill his campaign agenda, but the markets did not believe him. It is the stage in which it was thought that it was a bluff. But when it was seen that it was not so, that Trump was serious, and that he boosted the promised agenda, with a lot of aggressiveness and very little preparation in the field … There was the collapse that made hatching with the fiasco of the day of liberation.

P.: But that Trump was not the definitive one.

GG: No. It was an intermezzo Trump. It lasted until April 9, when he had to put the urgent back.

P.: Scared by the consequences of their own acts.

GG: But in time to avoid a credit crisis. What is no small thing.

P.: Peter Navarro is not seen so much, his guru in trade.

GG: And the figure of Betssen grew, not only in financial matters but also in the negotiation of commercial discussions.

P.: One would say that politics changed there. It is a Trump that has had to accept reality and reduce its claims.

GG: Yes. With the handbrake on.

P.: And from there the performance of Wall Street improved significantly.

GG: There is no doubt. The Trumpist revolution ended on April 9. With reciprocal tariffs in freezer. In principle, thus dodged the Bear market trap. And took a certain distance from the abyss.

P.: Will the good streak last?

GG: I am very skeptical about the final result of the experience. I don’t think we get rid of a recession, and, therefore, nor of the Bear market. But what the administration has to do to prolong this rally is very simple. You have to lower decibels to commercial policy, as you are already doing, and start showing the first agreements, which although they are only symbolic, will prolong the favorable reaction. The expectations are extremely gloomy, the portfolios have repositioned accordingly, and can be climbed quite a lot if they are contradicted with small gestures of peace and understanding. Hopefully Trump understands that his commercial crusade is a dead route and does not insist again.

P.: Do you think that if you leave the saga of the tariff rise we can return as at the beginning, turn the page and recover confidence in the US?

GG: It is no longer enough. The damage of the paralysis produced by the current policy must be corrected. The reverse has to be energetic, faster and deeper. Look at the forecasts of the port activity, the loads that come from China were cut 30%. The consumer is terrified. It must be convinced that he will not lose his job, that inflation is not going to shoot, and, therefore, that it is not necessary to cover and reduce his expense. And businessmen also have to make sure they are not affected and convince them that they do not have to cut their personnel templates. That was done with Apple and the exemption of tariffs for i-phones and laptops. But it is the exception, and not the rule. Companies are going to be seriously harmed mostly. And in that neglect and reluctance to act in time and take the bull through the antlers, there I understand that the recession is undermining the foundations without finding opposition.