Wall Street provides the financial backing to the establishment in both parties.

And the titans of the stock market are terrified of what a populist insurgent like Donald Trump means for the status quo.

So in the aftermath of the first Presidential debate, signals emerged from America’s financial sector about where they believed American politics was headed.

Wall Street donors overwhelmingly back Hillary Clinton.

In May it was reported Hillary and her Super PACS raised $23 million from Wall Street donors.

And in July, Breitbart found that hedge funds were backing Hillary over Trump to the tune of $123 million to $18 million.

Pundits argued this could amplify the message of Hillary as the establishment candidate whose commitment is to preserve a system favored by the well-off and the well-connected.

Wall Street donors strongly back globalist trade deals and favor amnesty because it provides cheap labor supply.

Opposing both amnesty and unfair trade deals are the hallmark of Trump’s campaign.

So it was no surprise that Citigroup – whose employees and executives have donated $176,000 to Hillary’s campaign – published a paper on the possible outcomes of the Presidential election, heavily favoring Clinton.

The International Business Tribune reports a Clinton win would enable the status quo to continue:

“In a paper timed to the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Citigroup told its clients that “the probability of the status quo continuing for U.S. politics seems high.” The paper — produced by the bank unit that works specifically with ultra-wealthy clients — also said that “a consensus of forecasters currently puts the probability of a Clinton victory at 68 percent,” and that most expect Republicans to retain control of the U.S. House.

“What does this mean?” the paper asked. “Divided U.S. government, with no major policy breakthroughs or break-ups looks most likely.”

Mega-bank Goldman Sachs also released a letter to investors Monday, assuring them that whether Clinton or Trump won, there were still opportunities to made money.

Clinton is the top recipient of Citigroup campaign cash in the 2016 election, having raised more than$176,000 from donors at the firm, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Donors from the bank were collectively Clinton’s fifth largest contributor during her 2008 presidential run, and her fourth largest contributor when she was a U.S. senator. 

In a companion report issued earlier this month, the bank explicitly reassured investors that despite her promises of sweeping initiatives, “Clinton policies represent ‘nuanced’ changes, largely status quo.”

Citigroup also warned their big money clients that Trump could threaten their cozy relationships with the U.S. government.

The International Business Tribune also reports:

“As for Trump, the bank says that in theory he could usher in more disruption with his proposals to alter America’s trade and immigration policies. However, Citigroup analysts suggest that Trump may face obstacles to implementing his agenda because it is difficult to know “the extent to which a Republican Congress would support a prospective Trump administration’s agenda given widely reported policy differences.”

That is music to the ears of many Trump supporters.

Disrupting the status quo on the trade and immigration policies that disadvantage American workers is exactly why Trump is the GOP nominee.