This is a Long View that you may well be able to ignore in three days' time. What exactly will be the short- and long-term market repercussions of a Trump victory on Tuesday?
(Before anyone points this out, this column said only two weeks ago that Mr Trump could not win without some external assistance, even though a majority in the US was open to be persuaded to vote against globalisation and the status quo. Since then, the intervention of the FBI appears to have given him that assistance, while his own uncharacteristic self-discipline has helped people to focus on the issues. His chances now appear realistic.)
Thankfully, the UK's Brexit vote in June gives us a handy market roadmap of what to expect when electorates deliver a kick to the globalised status quo. So it is fair to expect events to unfurl much as follows:
First, there will be horror and a big sell-off, centred on US stocks, and the dollar. (US treasury bonds, overvalued though they are, might counterinuitively gain, thanks to their haven status). The Brookings Institution's estimate from two weeks that the fall could be between 10 and 15 per cent seems overdone. That would be the second biggest daily fall ever, and some risk of a Trump victory is now priced in. But it would be quite a day, particularly as Mr Trump tends to be viewed with unalloyed horror outside the US.
After this, however, we can probably expect a re-run of the Brexit rebound, at least for the stock market, while a devalued dollar (from a recent run of strength) acts as a cushion. The Federal Reserve decides against rising rates after the market shock (which boosts stocks), investors realise that President Trump does not take office until January, and they also re-examine the US constitution. They realise that there are very great limits on his freedom of action.
That implies a buying opportunity for US stocks - particularly those that benefit from the cheaper dollar, such as more or less any large international company, and those that stood to be harmed by a Clinton presidency, such as healthcare stocks. This would accord with the "phony war" period from July to September, when British assets recovered.
The problem here is that the US is vastly more important for the rest of the world than the UK is. A weaker dollar implies a stronger yen and euro, which is bad for European and Japanese assets. It is the last things these economies need. But it might stop the slide in the pound, and it should come as a relief to emerging markets, where currencies have only recently started to recover after a long sell-off, and where a weaker dollar makes dollar-denominated debt far easier to service.
Once President Trump is finally in office, and starts to make decisions, then his lasting impact will grow clearer. It is a fair bet that will be another period of market vulnerability, as we have seen in Britain. And what then?
Much depends on war-gaming out how he runs his relationship with a Congress presumably led by Paul Ryan, a vocal deficit hawk, in a chamber where the anti-government Freedom caucus would have an effective veto. It is a popular assumption that this leads to a significant, but not wildly irresponsible move towards fiscal stimulus, while the Fed raises rates with great relief.
That would in all probability be a good outcome for the US economy, although it has plenty of political impediments. The inflation and higher rates it brought in its wake would be horrible for bonds. Although, if Mr Trump is somehow able to follow through with his plan to default deliberately on US treasury debt, we can expect something like market Armageddon, but let us assume that that is unlikely.
Among stocks, cyclical international plays, which have recently come back into vogue, would continue to prosper. Yield plays, bought because of their superior income when rates were low, would suffer. International investors in particular are enthusiastic to invest in defence and infrastructure stocks, for which Mr Trump has expressed some enthusiasm. But higher rates would not be good for valuations.
Put this together, and US assets perform poorly even as the economy recovers - exactly the combination that many of those revolting against the tyranny of rising capital markets and stagnating living standards would be voting for. Bonds in the long run do badly, making for lower valuations for stocks, but there are opportunities in stocks that benefit from inflation or cyclical growth. "Real assets" - from timber to commodities - would have appeal in any such environment.
What are the risks? The belief that monetary policy is about to give way to fiscal policy is sensible, but it faces likely implacable opposition from hard-line Republicans in Congress. Mr Trump, through tax cuts, is more likely to get a stimulus off the ground than a President Clinton, who would be unlikely to enjoy any political honeymoon with Congress. But the chances that it really changes things are tenuous, while the risk of an ungodly mess, under either president, is real.
Under Ms Clinton the risk is that the status quo grinds on as at present - which would imply the continuing risk of crisis further down the road if and when bond yields increase. Under Mr Trump the risks appear greater because he is an unknown quantity. It is easy to imagine a market scare if he tries to infringe on the Fed's independence, or appointing an economic team that lacks the market's confidence, could easily happen, and would be bad.
Again, the Brexit playbook provides the model. Expect dangerous wobbles, just as we have seen post-Brexit, when the market lurches down after a particularly alarming pronouncement (such as Theresa May's conference speech earlier this month), and up after a political development that shows Mr Trump cannot have it his own way (such as this week's court ruling that plans to leave the EU must pass parliament).
Most importantly, he would have a mandate to try to reverse the process of globalisation. That is a process fraught with risk, particularly for assets reliant on trade, particularly in the emerging markets.
In the long run, the range of possibilities under a President Trump defies the imagination. But in the short run, investors should follow the Brexit playbook.
