You can tell Wall Street is getting more than a little worried that Elizabeth Warren may become the next president of the United States when research reports start popping up about what her presidency might mean for the financial markets. Spoiler alert: It’s not good.

In a note to his high-net-worth clients on October 8, Barrett Tabeek, a financial adviser at Matauro, LLC, an affiliate of AXA, the giant French insurance company, makes clear that a Warren presidency won’t be good for corporate earnings, which means she won’t be good for the stock market, which means she won’t be good for shareholders who have no doubt gotten quite used to the stock market highs unleashed by Donald Trump’s massive tax cut for corporate America. “Everyone has their hierarchy of what’s important,” Tabeek wrote, “and Warren is an unapologetic populist who, if in power, would enact policies designed to reduce corporate earnings to benefit other stakeholders.” In the group that stands to benefit from a Warren presidency, Tabeek puts “workers,” then the “environment” and “those with lower incomes,” and finally “women and minorities.”

While he’s adamant that he’s not being political in his four-page note, Tabeek evaluated 10 of Warren’s policy proposals—among them, “ban fracking,” “increased taxes on the wealthy,” “break up big tech,” and “reinstate Glass- Steagall”—and pretty much declares that they will reduce corporate profits, reduce incomes for the super-wealthy, and raise gasoline prices for consumers. “The bottom line is that from a market standpoint, all of these policies would be negative for stocks, with some being downright negative for the broad markets (by reducing corporate earnings broadly) while others would be material negatives for certain sectors (large-cap tech, prison stocks, defense stocks, etc.),” he wrote. “How negative would these policies be for stocks? No one knows exactly, but it’s safe to say they’d be negative.”

Wall Street's best hope, Tabeek notes, is that most of the policies that Warren would like to enact would need congressional approval, “and as such they are unlikely to be approved, at least based on what we know now.” He wrote that polls suggest that Warren is “more liberal than most Democrats (and obviously Republicans) so even if Democrats were to sweep (controlling Congress and the presidency), it’s unclear how many of these policies would be enacted,” although he pointed out that some of her policies, such as having the EPA ban fracking, could be done by executive order.

But actually, Tabeek is significantly more pessimistic than many others on Wall Street, who don’t yet see Warren as either the inevitable Democratic nominee yet or that she would necessarily govern—if she’s elected president—as radically as she comes across in her stump speeches. For all her regulatory fervor, she still describes herself as a capitalist—and she hasn’t yet passed through the crucible of a general election, which can sometimes, though not always, have a moderating effect.

Robert Wolf, who has his own advisory firm and has been described as Obama’s favorite Wall Street banker, sees Warren as “having the most momentum in the populist lane” while Joe Biden, Obama’s former vice president, is “still the guy in the moderate lane.” He hesitates to say that Bernie Sanders is out of the picture, especially since within days of suffering a heart attack, he announced that he had raised $25 million from 1.4 million unique donors, “which is just off the charts in both ways.” He also can envision Sanders playing a key role, should he decide that his health scare prevents him from pushing forward with his campaign. Such a move, if it were to happen, would obviously favor Warren. “There’s no question that the role he decides to play—whether he continues onward or decides to align his movement with Elizabeth Warren—will definitely be one of the major steps in the primary season,” Wolf says. (There’s no indication, yet, that Sanders plans to pack it in.)