Yes A checkmark with a circle around it close Wells Fargo Advisors on Facebook Facebook symbol, links to WFA Facebook page Wells Fargo Advisors on Linkedin Linkedin symbol, links to WFA Linkedin page

Policy, Politics & Portfolios

Updates and analysis from Wells Fargo Investment Institute on what federal budget, regulatory, and trade decisions could mean for investors.

 

Taxing “where the money is”

call out

The core of the proposed Biden tax plan is an increase in corporate taxes and a new, controversial tax bracket for payroll taxes on annual incomes above $400,000. The plan would hit upper-income investors through an increase in the capital-gains tax rate and a cap on itemized deductions and on deductible income contributions to retirement accounts. It could hit all investors by cutting into corporate profits.

end call out

Key takeaways

call out
  • Dual goals of the proposed Biden tax plan are to raise revenues for increased government spending and to lower income inequality by focusing the tax increases on upper-income families.
  • The most visible increases likely will be in corporate and upper-income personal tax rates, along with a higher capital-gains rate. Less likely is a controversial payroll tax bracket for families with incomes greater than $400,000 a year.
  • We believe the effect of tax increases on investment returns for upper-income individuals would be largely offset by fiscal stimulus and other policy measures reinforcing our expected growth recovery as the threat from the coronavirus subsides.
end call out

More than just a revenue raiser

Infographic
call out

Attention soon will be shifting to the president’s $3.3 trillion tax plan — the sixth largest since 1940 as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) — now that the pandemic-relief package is navigating the budget resolution process.1 The goal of the Biden tax plan laid out during the presidential campaign is twofold: partially fund a decade-long spending increase and help reverse U.S. income inequality by focusing tax increases on upper-income groups with annual earnings over $400,000. There have been reports that the tax bill may be uncoupled from a phase 2 spending package on infrastructure and climate change to gain Republican support for the added outlays.2 We believe any such move would delay, not cancel, debate over tax increases. The Tax Foundation estimates an initial increase in taxes (before taxpayer adjustments to the changes) of 11.3% for those in the top 1% of income and tax cuts for those in the bottom 80%.3

The focus on moderate proposals, reversing 2017 tax cuts set to expire in the mid-2020s, could make them more palatable to moderate Democrats needed for a simple-majority vote through a budget resolution. Among the most controversial of the Biden proposals is a new payroll tax bracket for those with incomes above $400,000, accounting for an estimated 25% of the revenue increase projected by the plan over the next decade from higher personal taxes. (By contrast, proposed increases in the top tax rate on personal income and capital gains would account for just 18.5% of projected revenues.) That still pales by comparison to the 46% share for corporate tax increases included in the Biden plan.

Key features of the Biden tax proposals are summarized in Table 1, along with our assessment of their likelihood of being passed. We believe that the top candidates are corporate tax increases and a return of the top personal rate to 39.6% from the current 37%. Taxing capital gains at the ordinary income tax rate for those with incomes of more than $1 million, long a Biden favorite, is viewed as less likely than an increase in the current 20% top rate to 28%. That rate is viewed as a sweet spot by the Joint Tax Committee and other policy groups in maximizing revenues through an optimal trade-off between higher rates and realizations of gains.4 Income tax increases were made retroactive to the start of the year in 1993 and in 2010, but there’s no precedent for backdating a higher capital-gains rate.5

Table 1. Wells Fargo Investment Institute (WFII) assessment of Biden’s tax proposalsTable 1. Wells Fargo Investment Institute (WFII) assessment of Biden’s tax proposalsSources: Tax Foundation, Tax Policy Center, and Wells Fargo Investment Institute as of February 23, 2021
end call out

What the tax proposals mean for investors

call out

Upper-income families facing the largest tax increases make up a disproportionate share of the investing public, exposed both to higher income and capital-gains tax rates. Upper-income families also would be affected most by a proposed change from the current $19,500 cap (plus an additional $6,500 for workers over 50) on before-tax deductions for 401(k) contributions to a fixed refundable credit.6 That would give lower-income families a proportionately larger tax break.

Municipal securities and other tax-advantaged investments would benefit from an increase in the higher top personal tax rate, to 39.6% from the current 37%, adding to the value of each dollar of tax-protected income. That value could be enhanced further if the income threshold for the top tax bracket is lowered from the current $510,000 (for individuals), expanding the pool of potential beneficiaries of tax-sheltered income, or if capital gains for individuals earning more than $1 million annually are taxed at the ordinary, 39.6% rate.

An increase in the corporate tax rate to 28%, or a possible compromise rate of 25%, would move the U.S. levy back above the global average of about 22%. However, we expect any headwind to the earnings outlook created by higher U.S. taxes to be offset by increased fiscal stimulus and other policy changes. That, we believe, will reinforce an earnings-supportive recovery of economic growth as the threat from the coronavirus subsides over the course of this year.

end call out
 

Reevaluating tech policy under a Biden administration

call out

As Biden formulates his first-term agenda, revising technology policy is a priority. It is unclear whether Biden will resume the course set by the Obama administration or take a tougher stance. Headline risk could pose short-lived headwinds for the Communication Services and Information Technology (IT) sectors with minimal effects on valuations.

end call out

Key takeaways

call out
  • As Biden formulates his first-term agenda, revising technology policy is on the list of priorities.
  • It is unclear whether Biden will resume the course set by the Obama-Biden administration or take a tougher stance.
  • Headline risk could pose short-lived headwinds for the Communication Services and IT sectors with minimal effects on valuations. We remain favorable.
end call out

About face or stay the course?

Infographic
call out

As President Biden formulates his first-term agenda, revising technology policy is a priority. Efforts to rein in large technology firms, or Big Tech, gained momentum under Trump, leading to a series of inquiries, hearings, and lawsuits. As Big Tech continues to expand its influence, public concern over the concentration of power wielded by a handful of internet and social media giants is growing. Yet, anticompetitive behavior is not the only grievance the industry faces, as tech-related concerns about net neutrality and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act also have gained bipartisan support.

As the new administration reevaluates technology policy, it is unclear whether Biden will resume the course set by the Obama-Biden administration or take a tougher stance. Meanwhile, market observers question whether busting up technology conglomerates is beneficial for smaller competitors and shareholders.

end call out

Resetting priorities

call out

Technology was a priority for Obama. His campaign relied heavily on social media, and one of Obama’s first executive actions directed government to use technology to improve transparency and effectiveness.7 The Obama-Biden administration established strong ties with Silicon Valley. Today, the dominance of Big Tech has lawmakers and regulators calling for more oversight. Congress held hearings to investigate allegations of anticompetitive behavior. In October 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an antitrust lawsuit against a search-engine behemoth.

Besides antitrust, immunity granted to social media sites under Section 230 is raising free-speech concerns (see sidebar 1). Although the repeal or modification of Section 230 has garnered bipartisan support, it is unlikely to be an immediate concern for the administration, as pandemic-related issues take precedence. Meanwhile, net neutrality was a priority for the Obama-Biden administration (see sidebar 3). One likely target for Biden is to reverse a 2018 order that repealed net-neutrality rules. With a Democratic-controlled Federal Communications Commission, we expect this order to be overturned.

end call out

Breaking up is not so hard to do

call out

Like telecommunications in the early 1980s, Big Tech conglomerates could face breakups or stricter regulations under Biden. Yet, the effect of a Big Tech breakup may differ from busting up a telephone conglomerate when considering fixed-cost structures. Today intangible assets like intellectual property account for 84% of the S&P 500 Index’s enterprise value.8 Replicating social media or internet companies may not incur the same set of capital expenditures. We believe spin-offs could increase shareholder value.

Chart 1. Intangible assets continued to growChart 1. Intangible assets continued to growSources: Aon and Ponemon Institute, February 22, 2020. X-axis shows sectors for top three S&P 500 companies by intangible assets on balance sheet. Aon uses company PP&E (Property, Plant, and Equipment) data to determine tangible assets. Aon uses survey and company financial data to identify and calculate eight major categories of intangible assets: Intellectual Property, Business to Business Rights, Brand, Hard Intangibles, Public Rights, Data, Non-Revenue Rights, and Relationships.

Additionally, many tech titans have grown through acquiring smaller competitors. Yet, many have not been fully integrated; we believe spin-offs would be relatively easy to undertake.

If regulators were to impose tighter controls, smaller firms — which antitrust laws aim to protect — may fall victim to unintended consequences. The regulatory requirements could become cost prohibitive and impair smaller firms, as the General Data Protection Directive did in Europe.9 Another unintended consequence is stifled innovation, the driving force of technology.

end call out

Implications for the markets

call out

Headline risk could pose short-lived headwinds for the Communication Services and IT sectors (we are favorable on both) with minimal effects on valuations. Longer term, revising technology policy would likely have a nominal impact on sector growth.

A repeal of Section 230 could force firms, large or small, to invest heavily in monitoring content or to eliminate user posts altogether. Enterprises, from restaurants to travel sites, with business models that rely on user reviews could be disrupted. However, a full repeal is unlikely.

Successful antitrust litigation is a remote possibility but is slow in coming and difficult to achieve. The DOJ suit filed last fall is scheduled for September 2023, demonstrating the snail-like pace of litigating cases. Should the DOJ prevail, we would expect a hefty fine over a full-scale breakup. Longer term, we believe such action could be beneficial for the industry, consumers, and markets.

end call out
 

A sector in the balance

call out

While clean-energy efforts have been at the forefront of President Biden’s campaign, we believe their impact on the Energy sector will play out over years.

end call out

Key takeaways

call out
  • Direct legislative action on green energy seems unlikely. President Biden is more likely to make his impacts through regulatory agencies and executive orders.
  • We expect that Biden’s efforts will help renewables gain further market share — but with fossil fuels remaining as the backbone of U.S. energy production.
end call out

Energy in transition

Infographic
call out

President Biden has announced a wide-ranging plan for clean energy, with two goals. The first goal targets net-zero emissions by 2050. To this end, on his first day in office, the president announced that the U.S. would rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement. Considering the agreement’s lack of a binding enforcement mechanism across countries, the step seems largely symbolic. More concretely, the administration also targets a roughly $500 billion investment in green energy over 10 years.10

Biden’s second major goal is increased regulatory action against pollution in energy production and transportation, including a more hawkish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and regulatory appointments (both of which require little in the way of congressional approval). A good archetype for this may be President Obama’s approach during the later years of his presidency, where he faced a hostile Congress. President Obama’s Clean Power Plan for the EPA was implemented without the approval of Congress.11 Other options would be direct negotiation with major actors in the Energy sector, similar to Obama’s implementation of greater fuel efficiency standards in 2012.12

end call out

What may limit the administration’s plans

call out

One constraint that all new presidents face is consistency in implementing campaign promises. Two policies may dovetail or conflict with one another in their various dimensions. In the case of energy policy, a global solution to carbon emissions must reduce emissions in China, which still relies heavily on coal-fired power plants. If the White House wants Beijing to concede on trade, however, it may be necessary to compromise on another policy, possibly energy policy.

More significantly, even with the president’s 10-year program for renewable energy, natural gas and petroleum are likely to remain the principal sources of U.S. energy for the next several decades. We do believe the future is green, but that will require a slow and gradual transition away from fossil fuels.13 Clean-energy technology is improving, but hydrocarbons still enjoy a cost advantage and account for more usage than renewables — 40% to natural gas in power generation versus 14% for clean energy, as of mid-2020.14

Finally, even executive orders and tougher regulations on hydrocarbon industries may face obstacles — not in Congress but in the federal courts. A rising political trend during the past 20 years is the use of lawsuits by opponents of executive orders.15 Federal judges can issue national injunctions against presidential orders. The number of such injunctions has increased since 1999, and opponents of White House executive orders lost no time: A Texas federal judge last month issued a nationwide injunction against a Biden executive order to stop deportations of undocumented immigrants.<sup>16</sup> We expect similar tactics to limit the negative impact of executive orders on job creation in hydrocarbon industries.

end call out

Patience while the trend develops

call out

We do not believe that energy investors should avoid alternative energy exposure, but it is important to keep two ideas in mind. First, we believe those investors who want to increase this investment exposure should focus on potential opportunities in the Utilities and Industrials sectors. For a variety of reasons, we currently hold an overall rating of unfavorable on Utilities but favorable on the Industrials sector.

Second, looking past the ebb and flow of political pressure for or against promoting alternative energy, some traditional energy producers in the Energy sector are making inroads in alternative energy, in order to compete with alternative firms. These changes may take time, however, and are not occurring at all energy companies. We have a neutral view of the Energy sector, but investors seeking alternative energy exposure may need to be selective. We note also that investors with interest in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing may find opportunities in this sector. ESG investing focuses on finding companies with stronger or improving ESG scores, which may include traditional energy firms that are transitioning to alternative energy.

end call out
call out

1 “Placing Joe Biden’s Tax Increases in Historical Context,” Tax Foundation, October 22, 2020

2 Dan Clifton, "Democrats Float the Possibility of No Tax Increases This Year," Strategas, February 12, 2021

3 “Details and Analysis of President Joe Biden’s Tax Plan,” Tax Foundation, October 22, 2020

4 “TaxVox: Individual Taxes,” Tax Policy Center, September 16, 2020

5 Dan Clifton, “Potential Tax Increases in 2021,” Strategas, January 12, 2021

6 James Royal, “Biden’s Plan to Overhaul 401(k) Tax Breaks — Here’s Why It Could Create a Surge Into Roth 401(k)s,” Bankrate.com, September 29, 2020

7 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/transparency-and-open-government

8 Aon and the Ponemon Institute, February 11, 2020. Aon uses survey and company financial data to identify and calculate eight major categories of intangible assets: Intellectual Property, Business to Business Rights, Brand, Hard Intangibles, Public Rights, Data, Non-Revenue Rights, and Relationships.

9 “Europe’s Privacy Rules Hurt Small Firms, Not Tech Giants,” Bloomberg, July 25, 2019

10www.joebiden.com

11 “President Obama Unveils New Power Plan Rules in ‘Clean Power Plan,’” NPR, August 3, 2015

12 “Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standards,” Office of the Press Secretary, August 28, 2012

13 “2020 — A Tipping Point for Green Energy,” November 2020

14 “Sector Insights — Sustainability Series: Renewables,” Wells Fargo Advisors, September 9, 2020

15 “Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen Delivers Opening Remarks at Forum on Nationwide Injunctions and Federal Regulatory Programs,” February 12, 2020, in Washington, D.C., at the U.S. Department of Justice

16 “Federal Court in Texas Blocks Biden’s 100-Day Deportation Pause,” The Washington Post, January 26, 2021

end call out

Risk Considerations

call out

Wells Fargo and its affiliates are not legal or tax advisors. Be sure to consult your own legal or tax advisor before taking any action that may involve tax consequences. Tax laws or regulations are subject to change at any time and can have a substantial impact on individual situations.

Forecasts and targets are based on certain assumptions and on views of market and economic conditions which are subject to change.

Each asset class has its own risk and return characteristics. The level of risk associated with a particular investment or asset class generally correlates with the level of return the investment or asset class might achieve. Stock markets, especially foreign markets, are volatile. Stock values may fluctuate in response to general economic and market conditions, the prospects of individual companies, and industry sectors. Sector investing can be more volatile than investments that are broadly diversified over numerous sectors of the economy and will increase a portfolio’s vulnerability to any single economic, political, or regulatory development affecting the sector. This can result in greater price volatility. Sustainable investing focuses on companies that demonstrate adherence to environmental, social and corporate governance principles, among other values. There is no assurance that social impact investing can be an effective strategy under all market conditions.

end call out
call out

Global Investment Strategy (GIS) is a division of Wells Fargo Investment Institute, Inc. (WFII). WFII is a registered investment adviser and wholly owned subsidiary of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a bank affiliate of Wells Fargo & Company.

The information in this report was prepared by Global Investment Strategy. Opinions represent GIS’ opinion as of the date of this report and are for general information purposes only and are not intended to predict or guarantee the future performance of any individual security, market sector or the markets generally. GIS does not undertake to advise you of any change in its opinions or the information contained in this report. Wells Fargo & Company affiliates may issue reports or have opinions that are inconsistent with, and reach different conclusions from, this report.

The information contained herein constitutes general information and is not directed to, designed for, or individually tailored to, any particular investor or potential investor. This report is not intended to be a client-specific suitability or best interest analysis or recommendation, an offer to participate in any investment, or a recommendation to buy, hold or sell securities. Do not use this report as the sole basis for investment decisions. Do not select an asset class or investment product based on performance alone. Consider all relevant information, including your existing portfolio, investment objectives, risk tolerance, liquidity needs and investment time horizon.

Wells Fargo Advisors is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, but is not licensed or registered with any financial services regulatory authority outside of the U.S. Non-U.S. residents who maintain U.S.-based financial services account(s) with Wells Fargo Advisors may not be afforded certain protections conferred by legislation and regulations in their country of residence in respect of any investments, investment transactions or communications made with Wells Fargo Advisors.

Wells Fargo Advisors is a trade name used by Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC and Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC, Members SIPC, separate registered broker-dealers and non-bank affiliates of Wells Fargo & Company.

end call out