“One of the issues that has been in the headlines this election cycle are bank and financial institutions. They have been under a lot of scrutiny due to the recession that a lot of parties blame on the banks due to their greediness. The fact that they have been in the spotlight has been amplified by the fact that Clinton has given multiple speeches to major banks and financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs in her time after being Secretary of State for a nice financial compensation.
This in turn begs the question, just as with the pharmaceuticals, is Clinton going to really tighten regulation as she has said on the campaign trail, or will she be lenient, due to the fact that she received hefty sums of money, as she has been accused of? This question has been reinforced by the WikiLeaks which showed that in her speeches, she has said that politicians should have private policy as well as public policy, meaning that what is said on the campaign trail is not necessary the intended policy once in office.
Trump on the other hand has said multiple times that he is not owned by any special interest groups, in a clear reference to the supposed “obligation” for Clinton to take her payments into consideration when deciding on policy. This means that his hands are supposedly free to tighten regulation on the way banks and financial institutions operate which would most likely result in lower profit margins and thus lower profits.