Former U.S. President Donald Trump announced from his Florida estate on Tuesday night that he was launching a third White House campaign.

“I am running because I believe the world has not yet seen the true glory of what this nation can be,” he told an audience at his Mar-a-Lago club.

Speaking to reporters at a conference in Singapore on Wednesday, Anthony Scaramucci—the founder of Skybridge Capital who served as Trump’s communications chief before he was sacked after just 10 days—predicted the former president’s fast-and-loose tendencies could help boost financial markets.

“He’s the Holy Trinity of market lubrication,” he said, in remarks reported by news agency Reuters. “Stimulus, through deficit spending, low interest rates—easy money—and a lack of regulation.”

However, Scaramucci acknowledged that Trump also threatened to create volatility in markets that have already suffered a year of shaky ground.

“The flip side is [investors] also know that he creates what markets absolutely hate: political instability,” he said. “If any one of those other candidates can present themselves with some of the Trump messaging without the Trump drama, there might be opportunities.”

Throughout his presidency, Trump often took to Twitter to celebrate the strength of the U.S. stock market. Within the first two years of being in office, Trump had tweeted at least 60 times about the stock market, according to CNBC, frequently taking credit for its successes.  

‘Gridlock in DC’

Markets have so far had a muted response to Trump’s widely anticipated announcement, with U.S. stock futures dipping slightly on Wednesday and European markets instead reacting to a missile crossing the Ukrainian border and exploding on Polish territory.

In a note on Wednesday, Matt Simpson, a market analyst at Australia’s City Index, said that at this stage, the biggest question on investors’ minds was whether Trump’s presidential bid would divide the Republican party and inadvertently hand the Democrats “an easy win.”

Simpson noted that Trump was “likely just warming up for what could be another turbulent 2-years (at least) for U.S. politics,” but conceded that a lot could happen before the 2024 vote.  

“If inflation is not under control, it will put the Dems in a very weak position by the elections,” he said.

“However, it’s a long arduous road to the White House and as of yet Trump wields no presidential powers, so it could take some time for markets to take notice—which is likely why they showed no meaningful reaction today, from an announcement we all fully expected.”

Edward Moya, a senior market analyst at OANDA, told Fortune that Trump’s candidacy is unlikely to do the Republican party—or U.S. equities—any big favors right now.

“Republicans are divided and that is bringing down the odds for them to take over the White House in 2024. If President Trump didn’t announce, expectations for the Republican Party to deliver a red wave in 2024 would probably be much better,” he said.

“If Wall Street anticipates a candidate like Ron DeSantis is the favorite to win the nomination, you might see a strong case being made for being aggressive with U.S. stocks,” Moya added. “Gridlock in DC, however, will be how traders will price in the next couple of years, which means the only thing that matters right now is the path of inflation.”

Meanwhile, Padhraic Garvey, regional head of research for the Americas at ING, said market performance in the wake of the next presidential election would be about the economy, not the winning candidate.

“By the end of 2024 into early 2025, the Fed will likely have delivered a number of rate cuts that help to resuscitate an economy that had been hammered into submission from previous hikes (the ones ongoing),” he told Fortune on Wednesday. “The likely positive gloss on growth, of the non-inflationary kind this time, can be positive for markets. This more than anything might be a rationale for markets to do better post the 2024 presidential elections, for all candidates.”

For Trump specifically, Garvey said, market performance would partly depend on whether he controlled both houses of Congress.

“If he did, markets might anticipate a more pro-business, anti-deregulatory combination that could be viewed as positive for corporate America. Or at least markets could postulate that as a possible outcome,” he said.

“If he didn’t, his sphere of influence would tend to be directed at international affairs, which could go either way in terms of market impact. Markets do tend to prefer a split administration, as it tends then to be less intrusive. But the Trump version would likely be confrontational based off of his previous performances.”