Selling or betting on America ?

History reminds us that past difficulties have repeatedly strengthened America’s position. This period is likely no exception.

A growing group of voices on Wall Street is now urging investors to “Sell America.” They point to recent government policies, including unpredictable tariffs, stricter immigration measures, pressure on the Federal Reserve’s independence, questions around legal norms and skepticism toward certain scientific institutions, as signs that U.S. economic and market dominance may be fading. Concerns over rising national debt and deficits only heighten their sense of urgency.

The United States has long benefited from a powerful combination of strong institutions, cultural values, legal frameworks and technological leadership. These elements have supported investor returns for generations. Liquid capital markets, high standards of transparency and consistent respect for the rule of law have helped make the U.S. dollar the world’s primary reserve currency, positioned Treasury securities as the benchmark for risk-free rates and kept American equities among the strongest long-term performers globally. While some argue these advantages are now eroding, history suggests that periods of challenge have often led to renewal rather than decline.

In this piece, we review the historical backdrop of the current “Sell America” discussion, draw parallels to earlier episodes and offer a perspective to help guide investment choices. We focus especially on three key areas through a shareholder lens: the Federal Reserve, the judicial system and American culture.

The Federal Reserve: Independence Serves Investors

Recent public calls by President Donald Trump for the Fed to cut interest rates have once again highlighted why central bank autonomy matters. Any erosion of that independence could create unnecessary market volatility.

Presidents have pressured the Fed before. The central bank’s history is filled with moments of tension and adaptation, each time emerging more independent and capable. Andrew Jackson’s decision to dismantle the Second Bank of the United States in 1833 helped expose the dangers of an unstable financial system and eventually paved the way for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Notable past interventions include Franklin D. Roosevelt’s selection of Marriner Eccles as Fed chair during the Great Depression and Richard Nixon’s strong push against Arthur Burns ahead of the 1972 election, which contributed to later economic imbalances. Even after the 2008 global financial crisis, the Fed demonstrated its ability to act decisively with new tools like quantitative easing, helping stabilize markets when they needed it most. During the COVID-19 crisis, it moved quickly to support corporate credit markets, acting with independence despite political noise.

In our view, preserving the Fed’s autonomy remains one of the strongest safeguards for long-term shareholder interests.

The Courts: Guardians of Corporate Rights

For over two centuries, America’s legal system has reliably protected shareholder interests and corporate governance. Early Supreme Court rulings, such as Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, reinforced the importance of contracts. Delaware’s corporate law framework, established in 1899, clarified that directors owe duties of care and loyalty primarily to shareholders.

Today, the majority of large U.S. public companies choose to incorporate in Delaware for these reasons.

A landmark moment came in 1952 when the Supreme Court blocked President Truman’s attempt to nationalize steel mills, affirming that private enterprise is not subject to unilateral executive action. In recent years, federal courts, including the current Supreme Court, have continued to scrutinize executive actions on issues ranging from tariffs to funding decisions, often signaling limits on presidential power over independent agencies like the Fed.

Regardless of individual case outcomes, we expect the judiciary to remain a steady defender of corporate legitimacy and shareholder rights.

Culture: Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Resilience

American culture has long celebrated ambition, risk-taking, and innovation. Icons from Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford to Steve Jobs and Oprah Winfrey embody the idea that persistence and creativity can build extraordinary success. Failure is often viewed as a stepping stone rather than a permanent setback.

While rising income inequality has fueled frustration in recent decades, the U.S. has historically responded with targeted reforms rather than wholesale rejection of market principles. Antitrust efforts, corporate governance improvements after scandals like Enron and balanced regulatory actions have generally supported rather than undermined broad market performance.

Today, Silicon Valley remains a powerful symbol of this innovative spirit. It builds on a deep tradition where capital markets and cultural openness have fueled breakthroughs from railroads and electricity to aviation, computing and artificial intelligence. Government research has played a role at times (through agencies like DARPA or institutions like NIH), but private capital and decentralized entrepreneurship have been the primary drivers of scalable, shareholder-friendly innovation.

Other nations innovate successfully, yet few match the U.S. ability to combine institutions, culture, and risk capital in ways that consistently reward long-term investors. Japan and Germany excel in engineering but have historically been constrained by more conservative financing environments. China has shown impressive speed in certain sectors but state influence often prioritizes national goals over private shareholder returns.

A Unique Role for Risk Capital

Despite concerns about potential cronyism, institutional strain or shifting geopolitical dynamics, America’s system continues to stand out in its ability to channel risk capital toward productive, innovative enterprises. Over time, it has repeatedly adapted in ways that ultimately favor asset owners and market participants.

For investors, this suggests it remains wise to maintain meaningful exposure to U.S. risk assets. While global diversification makes sense and the dollar may face periods of cyclical weakness, we continue to believe American equities, innovation-driven companies and the broader U.S. economic framework will retain their long-term edge.

In summary:
Keep an eye on opportunities worldwide but think carefully before selling America.