Steve Hanke tells BI investors are shrugging off serious risks — and Trump is causing historic uncertainty
Investors are brushing off the Iran-Israel conflict as another brief distraction on the road to fresh highs. Steve Hanke thinks their complacency could prove costly.
The professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University told Business Insider that Israel has been directly or indirectly tied to seven of the 19 major geopolitical events since 1950. Only one of those incidents — the Arab-Israeli War in 1973 — caused "lasting damage" that still weighed on stocks a year later, he said.
"So, what's happening now suggests that investors believe that history is a guide," Hanke said. "They see signs of danger, but somehow think that they will escape, as they have in the past. I'm not so sure that they are right."
The flagship US stock index, the S&P 500, has rallied almost 2% since June 13, the day that Israel attacked Iranian nuclear and military sites. It closed at nearly 6,100 points on Wednesday, putting it within touching distance of a record high.
The rebound came despite the US bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities on Sunday, and Israel and Iran accusing each other of breaking a Trump-brokered ceasefire this week.
Hanke, a former economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan, was the president of Toronto Trust Argentina when it was the world's best-performing market mutual fund in 1995. He co-authored a book published in May titled "Making Money Work: How to Rewrite the Rules of our Financial System."
The veteran economist and commodity trader flagged several risks that investors appear to be shrugging off. Middle Eastern conflicts and the Russia-Ukraine war were still "up in the air," and neo-conservatives "have their sights aimed at China," he said.
"If that wasn't bad enough, the Trump administration is engaged not only in a tariff war but in a multitude of dramatic policy changes that have created what I termed ' regime uncertainty,'" Hanke said.
Hanke was describing a situation where individuals, investors, businesses, and other entities are so unsure of regulations, future government policies, and how the economy will fare that they delay long-term planning or investment.
"We have not witnessed regime uncertainty since Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Dealers in the 1930s," Hanke said. "So, the current context is quite different than the other 19 geopolitical crisis episodes."
Put differently, investors should be wary of assuming the stock market will swiftly rebound from this geopolitical shock as it has from many others, given just how uncertain the world is right now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
25 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court has 6 cases to decide, including birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the final days of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have six cases to resolve that were argued between January and mid-May. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The remaining opinions will be delivered Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts said. On Thursday, a divided court allowed states to cut off Medicaid money to Planned Parenthood amid a wider Republican-backed push to defund the country's biggest abortion provider. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Wall Street Journal
28 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Israel's War With Iran Has Reordered the Middle East—but Not as Expected
The Middle East is undergoing a dramatic realignment—just not the one U.S. and regional leaders envisioned less than two years ago. Before the Hamas-led attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, years of painstaking negotiations brought Saudi Arabia to the cusp of a landmark deal for diplomatic recognition of Israel. That would have solidified an Israeli-Arab coalition against Iran, locked in U.S. support for Saudi security and opened the door to greater acceptance of Israel in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Axios
29 minutes ago
- Axios
Supreme Court ruling on patients rights' could devastate Planned Parenthood
Medicaid patients don't have a right to freely choose their medical provider, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday, in a case that carries major implications for Planned Parenthood. Why it matters: The first abortion-related case of President Trump 's second term could result in the defunding of Planned Parenthood, which derives a significant chunk of its funding from the safety net program and is the nation's biggest provider of abortion services. Driving the news: The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, stemmed from South Carolina's move to block Medicaid recipients from getting care at Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. The Trump administration backed South Carolina's position. The decision in favor of South Carolina, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by the court's other conservative justices, may embolden more states to remove Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri have already done so. It comes amid Trump administration efforts to withhold Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood affiliates. The sweeping GOP budget bill now being debated in Congress would also cut off Medicaid funding to the reproductive health group. Nearly half of patients who use Planned Parenthood health services have Medicaid coverage, according to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Shutting the provider out of Medicaid networks could effectively defund it — a longtime priority of conservative politicians and an explicit goal of Project 2025. Federal Medicaid funding is not used to pay for abortions with few exceptions. Less than half of states use their own dollars to cover abortion care under Medicaid. But defunding Planned Parenthood would not only further curtail abortion access. It would also diminish the availability of primary care services provided by the clinics, including STI and cancer screening, birth control prescriptions, vaccines and mental health help. What they're saying:"As far as Planned Parenthood and comparable providers are concerned, this case could be part of a one-two punch if Trump's Big Beautiful Bill passes," Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at University of California, Davis, wrote on X. "At a time when health care is already costly and difficult to access, stripping patients of their right to high-quality, affordable health care at the provider of their choosing is a dangerous violation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom," said Destiny Lopez, co-president and CEO of the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute.
