Presidential Election is coming - just one month left and we'll see who's going to run the country for at least 4 years. There are different points of views about how this election will impact the stock market. Both candidates have pros and cons and let me just summarize what we have about them.A small note - I don't have a favorite candidate yet, trying to compare both of them here. Donald TrumpThere are lots of arguments regarding his managerial skills, but we can't avoid a few things - his negotiation skills are at the highest of possible level. Yes, he started his own business with a great family support, but he created a real brand out of his own personality and name. He's definitely a sales guy - in most cases it might be a key point to negotiate the necessary terms on both domestic and international markets. Moreover, his opinion about the taxation is what I like - and it's obvious for me - if the government could lower the taxes for enterprises it can create even more opportunities for business growth. Current market conjecture shows that large corporations are tend to closely work with different startups and talented entrepreneurs - just take a look at a number of VC buyouts this year:Walmart bought Jet.com for more than $3B - Jet.com was born just 2 years agoGeneral Motors spent a few billions on Cruise Automotive and Lyft working on a self-driving carsUnilever acquired Dollar Shave Club for $1BBed Bath & Beyond, recently acquiring One King’s LaneHudson Bay’s acquired GiltUnderArmour acquired MyFitnessPal ($475 million)Asics played catch-up, acquiring RunKeeper ($85 million)That's just a few deals - and I bet if large corporations could optimize their taxes they'll have more money to spend on private tech companies. Moreover, check this graph from Pitchbook venture report showing how the venture market has changed since 2006:I think that this pace could be even greater, because of a few reasons. Nowadays the main aim of each tech startup and early-stage company is a buyout / acquisition. However, I think that if the government could create a certain environment for entrepreneurs with lowered taxes - it might be a significant motivation for entrepreneurs to build the company, scale the business and put all the efforts to growing this business. I think that a number of IPOs proves this argument, Renaissance Capital shows a significant slow down in IPO deal flow:So eliminating this tax burden when the company is growing and management is scaling the business could create more competition and potentially this is the best way to avoid the tech bubble burst. Tech bubble is definitely getting bigger - check the valuation of all tech companies, even recent IPOs of Nutanix and Twilio showed that valuation doesn't matter any more. People simply start buying the tech stocks and they don't care about the business, valuation. We've already seen this when dot-com bubble burst and this wave after the burst washed out so-called tech 'investors' and 'traders'. However, Trump's business and financial behavior hasn't always been successful - he got rich really fast, he jumped over the financial stairs. He is very impulsive and emotional and sometimes it plays out really bad, especially when somebody criticize him or his strategy. Trump's team is really strong - it might help him to get more votes at the election. We always discuss Trump's immigration proposals - sometimes it sounds really foolish. However, Trump is focusing on bringing in really talented people. He wants to make it easier for professionals and different specialists to come to the United States - I think it might benefit the whole country in long-term.Hillary ClintonHillary's main advantage is her experience, dynastic advantage. She is really sharp, during the most recent debates she was very confident and almost no emotions besides a big smile showed up on her face. She is a politician - Trump is a businessman, and this point is playing well for Hillary. She knows how to act on the political scene.However, in terms of business, I think that Hillary is a real threat for the whole economy. I've already showed the graph of early-stage companies funded and a number of IPO deals over the last several quarters. This graph could be interpreted different ways, but the most important conclusion for me is that entrepreneurs are building the companies with only aim to sell it. They don't want to make a business and they don't care about the business efficiency - they just want to scale the project and then sell it. Hillary wants to keep the taxation, but from the other hand she wants to support people to become entrepreneurs. I think it's not a case at the moment. Take a look at this chart from Pitchbook venture report:Market is taking care of the early-stage companies and entrepreneurs - there are lots of business angels and venture funds that invest into very early-stage companies. The deal value had increased from $478M in Q1'10 to $1,852M in Q2'16 - more than 3.8x growth. So the new President should pay more attention to the companies and entrepreneurs after they raise first funding rounds, there is no problem with starting and scaling the company - there are problems with managing the company when it reaches a certain level of 100-200-300+ employees. And this point is essentially against Hillary. I also have a few question about Hillary's foreign policy - Middle Asia question is really important as of now. All this oil games could play out really bad for the whole economy. However, there are still more questions than answers as of now and I don't want to start guessing what each of the candidates would do when he or she becomes a President. SummaryTo make this long story short, I think that Trump's economy initiatives are really good for both early-stage companies and large corporations. As of now I see that his economy policy would benefit a lot more than Hillary's one. However there is still an important point standing out - Hillary is a politician, Trump is a businessman.