Skip to main content

Investors: What is better Democrats or Republicans

Off the top, you have to say that the past three administration are a case and point that a Democratic president are better than a republicans for investors; During Clinton's 8 years and during Obama's 8 years the S&P 500 has been a very very strong performer, no su much for both Bushs

In 2015 DILJ did a study, their conclusion was:

There really shouldn't be any debate; on a historical basis, Democratic presidents are better for the stock market. The saying that Republican Presidents are better than Democrats for investors continues to be one of the bigger misconceptions there is in the investment world.
Yet, most investors (and a good portion of Wall Street) is for the Republican?  So there has to be something that the GOP offers that the Dems don't.  One thing for sure, GOP has been a big tax cutter for the richer parts of the electorate.  Again and again you see GOP elected at the state level lowering taxes on the wealthiest (often creating massive fiscal imbalance), but all that these "rich folks" gain from lower taxation they seem to lose from the market.

An excellent example is the impact of ACA (aka Obamacare) granted there are still massive problem with the law as it is written, with the GOP in congress doing everything to block it  (instead of amending) or even in some case making it even more difficult to function, there is no doubt that for the country as a whole it has been a very good thing, it has reduce medical expenses growth rate dramatically.   However, it is very far from being perfect.  Unfortunately the GOP's decision to delegitimize the White House and its occupant make any reasonable reform impossible.  Yet it has been very good for the US economy -- it has absolutely reduced medical costs as a percentage of GDP.  That is good for overall economic wellbeing and for the markets.

So what's up now with the options of Trump and Clinton.  To say that Trump had a bad two weeks would be an understatement of massive proportion.  The right tried, and failed, to imply that Clinton had done the same thing -- except she had not.  Yes she took a US$ 700,000 hit on her portfolio, but the tax reduction is only in her capital gains which was apparently $3,000 -- in 2015 her and her husband paid almost US$ 3 million in taxes.  This scandal is different because Trump has not paid taxes for 20 years -- he has not yet said that he actually paid taxes -- he was very careful to not imply that he did!!!

Clinton is doing well, sure she's not liked but then she was associated with Bill so has no ability to make any Republican happy.  Moreover, as Secretary of State she made mistakes -- it comes with the job.

Aside from all that its all good, it would see that Clinton will win the elections.  

We can only hope, 


Popular posts from this blog

Trucker shortage? No a plan to allow driverless rigs

There are still articles on how America is running out of truckers -- and that its a huge problem, except its not a problem, if it was a problem salaries would rise to so that demand would clear. Trucking is one of those industry where the vast majority of participants are owner/operators and therefore free agents.

Salaries and cost are extremely well know, "industry" complains that there are not enough truckers, yet wages continue to fall... Therefore there are still too many truckers around, for if there was a shortage of supply prices would rise, and they don't.

What there is though is something different; there is a push to allow automatic rigs to "operate across the US", so to encourage the various authorities to allow self driving rigs you talk shortage and hope that politicians decided that "Well if people don't want to work, lets get robots to do the work" or words to that effect.

This has nothing to do with shortage of drivers, but every…

Every punter says oil prices are on the rise: Oil hits $48/bbl -- lowest since September 2016

What the hell?

How could this be, punters, advisors, investment bankers all agreed commodity prices  in general and oil prices in particular are on the rise...its a brave new era for producers and exporters -- finally the world is back and demand is going through the roof, except not so much!

What happened?  Well energy is complicated, the world operates in a balance -- 30 days of physical reserves is about all we've got (seriously) this is a just in time business.  So the long term trend always gets hit by short term variations.

Global production over the past 12 months has risen by somewhat less than 1.5% per annum.  As the world market changes production becomes less energy intensive (maybe), but the reality is that the world is growing more slowly -- America Q4 GDP growth was around 1.9% (annualized) Europe is going nowhere fast (the GDP growth in Germany is overshadowed by the lack of growth in France, Italy, Spain (lets say 27 Euro members generated a total GDP growth of 1.2…

Paying for research

This morning I was reading that CLSA -- since 2013 proudly owned by CITIC -- was shutting down its American equity research department -- 90 people will be affected!

Now the value of a lot of research is limited, that is not to say that all research is bad. In fact, I remember that GS's Asia Aerospace research was considered the bible for the sector.  Granted, there was little you could do with the research since the "buy" was for Chinese airlines...that were state owned.  Still it was a vey valuable tool in understanding the local dynamics.  It seems that the US has introduced new legislation that forces brokers to "sell" their research services!  Figures of $10,000 an hour have been mentioned...

Now, research can be sold many times; if GS has 5000/6000 clients they may sell the same research 300x or 400x (I exaggerate) but this is the key -- Those who buy the research are, I presume, prohibited from giving it away or selling it, at the same time the same rese…