I found this one from 2004. http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/21/cx_da_0721presidents.html Presidents And The Stock Market Dan Ackman, 07.21.04, 3:00 PM ET NEW YORK - Does the president affect your portfolio? Candidates would certainly like you to think that the answer is yes, and that the particular candidate doing the talking is better than the other guy. Over the years, several studies have shown that the stock market has fared markedly better under Democrats than Republicans. (see: "The Presidential Portfolio") The difference, according to Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov, both professors at the University of California Los Angeles Anderson School of Business, is much too large to be random and cannot be explained by fluctuations in the business cycle. Nor can it be explained by higher interest rates in Republican administrations. The UCLA professors looked at data going back to 1927. Our own study of the post-World War II presidencies confirms their results. We found that the S&P 500 has averaged a total return of 14.1% per year under Democratic presidents since April 1945, and 11.8% under Republicans. The best total returns--17.4% per year--were under Bill Clinton, whose presidency ranked first in economic results. (see: "Presidents And Prosperity") Gerald R. Ford ranks second, followed by Harry S. Truman. Presidents And The Stock Market President Term Economic Rank S&P 500 Start Of Term S&P 500 End Of Term S&P 500 Annualized Total Return (%) Stock Market Rank Bill Clinton 1993-2001 1 433.37 1,342.54 17.4% 1 Gerald R. Ford August 1974-1977 5 86.02 102.97 17 2 Harry S. Truman April 1945-1953 7 13.64 26.57 15.6 3 Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953-1961 9 26.57 58.11 14.9 4 Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 4 131.65 286.63 14.4 5 George H. W. Bush 1989-1993 10 286.63 433.37 14.4 5 John F. Kennedy 1961- November1963 3 58.11 74.01 12.4 7 Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 6 102.97 131.65 11.2 8 Lyndon B. Johnson November 1963-1969 2 74.01 103.86 10.2 9 Richard M. Nixon 1969-August 1974 8 103.86 86.02 0.6 10 Source: Forbes statistics However, no one, including Santa-Clara and Valkanov, seems to know why the market does better under Democrats. Another puzzle: There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market. Under Ford, for example, the economy was middling but the market enjoyed a 17% total annualized return (share price gains coupled with reinvested dividends). This result may be a fluke as the market fared very poorly just before him under Richard M. Nixon (0.6% return) and continued at sub-par levels under Jimmy Carter. The Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower economies were underwhelming, but the market averaged a total annual return of better than 15% during their years in office. Clinton apart, the presidents who presided over strong economies did not enjoy particularly strong stock markets. Under Lyndon B Johnson, for instance, gross domestic product growth was at its height--but the S&P 500 results for LBJ were worse than for any postwar president except Nixon. John F. Kennedy was the third best president for the economy, but "his" stock market was below average. President George H.W. Bush presided over a sour economy but an average market. Why the disconnect? Market economists say that investors don't particularly care about GDP or employment or even average personal income. Investors focus on corporate earnings, particularly projected earnings, and on interest rates. "Stock investors don't care about the economy. They care about earnings," says Richard DeKaser, chief economist at National City, a Cleveland-based financial holding company. DeKaser cites the so-called Alan Greenspan model for share price returns which holds that stock prices are a function of projected earnings discounted by rates on ten-year Treasury bills. Other economists say there is a relationship between the economy and share prices, but it works in complicated ways. There may be a substantial lag time between economic gains and share price gains. On the other hand, share prices may rise in anticipation of better economic times rather than in reaction to actual prosperity. Share prices also may rise if investors' negative expectations in a given situation are not realized. Management consultant Peter Cohan says investors have poor expectations of Democrats, so once the Democrats are in power, stocks rise in relief "when it turns out they don't screw up the economy." For that reason, some advise that investors temper their expectations. Says David Kelly, an economic adviser to Putnam Investments: "Bottom line, I think people should not let how they feel about politics affect how they feel about investing."
I quite agree gnome. However never ever under estimate the resourcefulness and ruthlessness of US business/military/gov. The paradigm shift is that once they had US middle/lower class to play with and now they have the world. The expression "what is good for GM is good for america" is now too restricting. US middle class need to face the reality that the US wall street economy can be doing OK but they are being left behind more and more as Wall Street globalizes. regards f9
It is a noble thought, there are always as many people willing to drag the rest down to their level as there people who are prepared to elevate themselves. Essentially, "the american dream" as most people know it is over, but is taking a long time to bury. The new new reality is that the world is round and the sun does not rise over NY and set over LA. regards f9
Most important reason for high standard of living is high productivity, everything else is secondary. So far U.S. economy is one of the most productive(efficient) economies in the world. Any American whining and bitching proves himself to be fucked up in a head. Doom and gloom? When socialist mulato idiot (and a racist) becomes a president, Democrats have a fiflibuster-free majority in Congress I will start believing in doom and gloom.
I suppose that is one way of expressing yourself. I am not a US citizen but I spend time in the states each year and from where I am standing middle/lower US is not looking too good. Made worse by their inability to take stock of reality. regards f9
I've experienced the dumbing down of America first hand. I had a publishing business, producing education material for gifted students. After 2000 the "gifted" teacher population went from one per school to one per 3 or 4 schools(Some districts eliminated the "gifted" position, but they'd have 100+ ESL teachers!). Between lower sales and districts taking a year to pay...closed the business & started trading full-time. BTW: ESL = English Second Language
LOL Don't worry - the idiot in charge already crippled his party, the dollar, the military, and our country. Spread out the military too thin. Practically doubled the national debt - that which took two hundred some years to accumulate. Entered us in a war that was going to pay for itself. Made a mockery of the party of Goldwater by allowing his Congress to spend like drunken sailors. Allowed Mortgage companies such as Ameriquest (that fudraised millions for him) to loosen up predatory lending laws. Had his VP meet secretly with big OIL - gee that outcome is pretty apparent. Hurricane Katrina, Meyers failed appointment to the Supreme Court - a farce that even true conservatives acknowledged. Gonzales bullying a sick man - Ashcroft, in order to shred the US Constitution. Mockery of Abu Ghraib thru a hands off attitude to Iraqi War prisoners, His astronomical debt flooded the world with US Treasuries contributing to this mess. A hands-off or even encouragement to US Companies to offshore US jobs, a Medicaid program that prohibits the gov't from negotiating with drug companies. True, the seeds of disaster have been spread for sometime. W just added fuel to the fire. And I thought that such a respected and accomplished businessman as W would do a Hechuva job. I guess a lot of us were wrong.