TD Cowen Predicts 60% Probability of CLARITY Act Vote Failure
Wall Street investment bank TD Cowen has released a report predicting a 60% probability that the CLARITY Act will fail to pass on the day of voting.
TD Cowen further pointed out in the report that even if the bill secures the required 60 votes in procedural voting, Democrats can still delay the debate process by proposing "ethics amendments," forcing the Senate to postpone the bill's handling until after the midterm elections.
This prediction comes as several key congressional figures have made strong statements regarding the bill on the same day—House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill expressed "optimism," Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott stated the bill "will undoubtedly pass," while Senator Cynthia Lummis warned of severe consequences if the bill fails, saying, "America is done." In contrast to the strong statements from Congress members, TD Cowen, as a market research institution, has provided a relatively bearish probability assessment.
The core risk highlighted in the report lies in the procedural mechanisms themselves— even if the bill successfully crosses the 60-vote cloture threshold, opponents can utilize the Senate's debate rules to propose amendments, continuously increasing the number of amendments to delay substantive voting time instead of directly voting against it. This strategic delay could cause the bill to miss the current legislative window.
From a market mechanism perspective, the quantitative probability prediction (60% failure probability) provided by investment research institutions often has a more direct impact on institutional investors' short-term position adjustments than the qualitative statements from congressional members. Institutional trading desks typically refer to such reports to adjust their risk exposure to related cryptocurrencies and concept stocks, especially in the final trading period before the procedural voting results are announced. If the bill is delayed as TD Cowen predicts until after the midterm elections, it would mean that the industry's previous expectation of "regulatory clarity within the year" would be dashed, significantly extending the duration of regulatory uncertainty. This would typically suppress the risk appetite accumulated by the market based on favorable regulatory expectations, leading to profit-taking selling pressure on related crypto assets and beneficiary stocks. Conversely, if the bill ultimately passes smoothly, it could realize the previously accumulated optimistic expectations in the market, resulting in a short-term positive reassessment. Who benefits: If the bill is delayed, leading institutions that prefer to maintain the status quo and have established mature compliance teams in the regulatory gray area are relatively unaffected and may even consolidate their advantages due to the uncertainty premium brought about by regulatory delays. Who is under pressure: Small and medium-sized project parties and investors who accelerated their layouts based on the expectation of "regulatory clarity coming soon" will have to readjust their compliance planning and capital deployment rhythm if the bill is postponed.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
TD Cowen's Washington Research Group has long focused on translating congressional political dynamics into policy probability assessments for institutional investors. This type of "policy research" is not uncommon among Wall Street investment banks. The team has previously released similar probability prediction reports before significant legislative votes in areas such as healthcare, energy, and financial regulation, making it an important source of information for institutional investors assessing policy risks.
From a funding and information pathway perspective, TD Cowen's policy research reports are essentially a type of information service product sold to institutional clients like hedge funds and asset management companies. Investment banks form specialized teams to track congressional member movements, staff communications, and procedural rule details, converting these originally dispersed and hard-to-quantify political signals into specific "pass/fail" probability numbers for institutional investors to adjust their positions accordingly. This essentially transforms "political information asymmetry" into a tradable, priceable research service.
Similar models of "investment bank policy research teams pricing legislative outcomes" have repeatedly appeared in past market games before major U.S. healthcare reforms, tax reform bills, and various debt ceiling negotiations. Whenever significant legislation enters the final voting stage, major investment banks' policy research teams intensively release probability judgment reports for trading desks to adjust their positions accordingly. The current stage of cryptocurrency regulatory legislation is precisely a peak window for this type of "policy arbitrage" research demand—the higher the uncertainty of the bill's outcome, the greater the market value of related research services.
This essentially reflects the "capital concentration" at the information level: the uncertainty of legislative outcomes creates a space for information arbitrage, and only large institutions with specialized policy research teams capable of continuously tracking congressional procedural details can produce such probability judgments with trading value. This further concentrates the trading advantages related to policy among top institutions possessing such research capabilities. Mechanically, the Senate debate rules grant the minority procedural power to delay votes through amendments, and the complexity of this rule design is precisely the root of the value of the "policy research" niche industry— the more complex the rules, the harder it is for ordinary investors to make their own judgments, thus amplifying the information advantage of professional research teams.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
The more complex the rules, the more valuable professional judgment becomes.
Procedural delays are more covert than voting against.
Uncertainty itself is a business.