6 ms·

U.S. Presidents and Comparative Stock Market Performance

64 points by makaimc 7y ago

seibelj 7y ago
It would be interesting to see Clinton's return extended one more year. He exited right before the dotcom bubble imploded.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  And if Bush could have left a year early, Obama would have taken the fall for the entire financial crisis (well, many Republicans blame him anyways).
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    Bush was pretty unlucky. 2 massive crashes during his presidency.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      Ya, and neither were completely his fault. However, I do fault him for juicing a good economy when stimulus would be more effective during a downturn when not wasted during upturns. Save in good times, spend in bad would do a lot for stability. 2008 could have been handled much better if he was disciplined enough during the recovery in between (besides, taking more money out of the system would have acted against bubbles). In contrast, the Clinton surplus going into the dotcom bust made it much easier to deal with. Trump is making similar mistakes, and if a problem occurs on his watch, he is going to have fewer tools to deal with it (and pressuring the Fed to cut rates during a boom is unforgivable). Unfortunately, Americans seem to neither want taxes to go up or interest rates to rise in good times so they can go down in bad. They just want them to go down all the time. So we are the most at fault after all.
      - autokad 7y ago
        people forget Bush was fighting an energy recession, and those were a godsend to many. my brother used the money to apply for college and buy books to give college a go and see how it is, he's an MD now. I disagreed with almost everything Bush did, but that was not one of them. The same is true for Trump, in the sense had it not been for the Trump tax cuts, we would be in a recession right now.
        cannonedhamster 7y ago
        How, praytell would we be in a recession right now if not for tax cuts that barely made an impact for the vast majority of Americans? The economy was good when he took it over and despite everything he's trying to do to destroy it, it seems to be getting to the point of overheating. His tariffs will cool that though as people being to feel a 20% increase in all of the good that they buy and people start losing work because there's no one able to buy. Don't forget the record highs right before the last recession. Corporate debt is at unsustainable amounts and we have to pay for our debt at some point. Money doesn't just continue to come from nothing. While I don't disagree with everything he's done, President Trump has caused lasting damage to our economy, our country, and our status in the world that will take generations to fix, if the country survives that long. We seem to be at a point where a rock and a hard place have met, that only bloodshed or external conflict will remedy. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
        aaronbrethorst 7y ago
        A year later, it’s very clear that the tax cuts boosted gross domestic product and jobs a bit — and just for one year. Its effects are fading as U.S. GDP growth appears likely to weaken in 2019. The only thing that “rocked” were corporate profits and the stock market. And we’re facing trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-the-trump-tax-cuts-were-a-bust-2019-01-30 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-the-trump-tax...
        autokad 7y ago
        that doesn't conflict with anything i said.
- KennyFromIT 7y ago
  This sounds like you're suggesting to p-hack. "Let's just adjust our window because we know something is going to change and it would be interesting." Meanwhile, the results are voided. It's seemingly minor adjustments like thesr that have been causing tons of incorrect data to get published in science for way too long now.
- tropo 7y ago
  What is funny is that it wouldn't be fair to blame him for that inevitable crash, but it would be fair to blame him for the housing crash that happened much later. He changed the rules for mortgages. That took quite a long time to cause disaster.
whoevercares 7y ago
Nowadays you just all in the dip the moment Trump tweet anything negative(aka trade war) —— he’ll say the opposite the next day and the market will rebound magically. This brings my portfolio return 2x already. Honestly I’ll be surprised if no one in his family/asset management chain exploits this
markc 7y ago
Makes no sense to measure from day of taking office. With a 1 year offset, Trump's market goes from performing "very well" to the erratic mess that it has been ever since.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
carlivar 7y ago
I've always been more curious about this stat when: -President and Congress majority are same party (and by party) -President and Congress majority are different party. I suspect different parties are better, to reign in the excesses of each. But not sure. Maybe I'll do it some time.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  If the parties were working for the good of all Americans I think you'd be correct. The Republican party decided to literally impede anything, right or wrong that President Obama did. Democrats changed some rules for lower court justices because Republicans refused to even vote against judges just to claim Obama was leaving seats vacant. That's not governance, that's plain impeding government from doing it's job by people who don't believe government should exist. You cannot have a functional government when people meant to govern it don't believe it should exist.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sonnyblarney 7y ago
Stock variation doesn't really say much other than probably a degree of general confidence about how much profits companies can take. How about actual corporate earnings? (Thereby normalizing for wacky p/e ratios?) And what about bond yields? (Because bonds and stocks are the primary assets, valuations flow from one to the other) Interest rates? (Because cheaper Fed rates entail easy money) GDP? (Because that's a measure of the economy) Housing prices? (Because that's a measure of consumer spending, i.e. 'the rest of us') Housing starts? (A measure of business confidence in consumer) Employment? (A good measure of overall health) Inflation? (A variety of factors but it puts the others in perspective) Instead of this 'stock prices' thing they should show us all that for perspective.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
batterseapower 7y ago
Allegedly, stocks which are highly exposed to government spending outperform their low-gov-spending peers under a Dem presidency, and underperform during a GOP one: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1572801 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1572801
asaph 7y ago
It's too bad this analysis was done against the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is a price weighted index of only 30 large cap stocks and widely considered to be a poor indicator. Something like the S&P 500 index would would have been a better choice though it doesn't go as far back as the DJIA.
- computerphage 7y ago
  Although, the Dow doesn't really go back that far either in the sense that it swaps out stocks occasionally, which could cause spurious conclusions to be drawn if not accounted for.
  - kgwgk 7y ago
    The S&P 500 does also swap stocks, and more often :-)
    - kenneth 7y ago
      If the data exists for the underlying stocks in the market, a far better indicator would be to do an IRR calculation on every stock in the market, or every stock above a certain market cap threshold (inflation-adjusted). Easy enough.
- tutfbhuf 7y ago
  "though it doesn't go as far back as the DJIA" That's not a big of a deal, it has been calculated backwards using historical data.
Leary 7y ago
A cut in the corporate tax rate shockingly increases equity value.
cfarm 7y ago
I wonder if most policies put in place during a president's term actually affect the next term.
desdiv 7y ago
"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans." - Robert F. Kennedy
- eaenki 7y ago
  The Kennedys speeches were on another level
  - swarnie_ 7y ago
    What a difference 50 years have made.
- B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago
  That's not badly put, but aircraft carriers don't grow on trees, and it seems that historians correlate GDP with military success. Which has been bumming out people for much longer than that example of Greece becoming a province of the Roman Republic.
krzjn 7y ago
It seems to me that these results don't take into account the fact that presidents inherit the policies of the previous terms. Some presidents can ride on the coat tails of former policies and take the credit or blame just because they're the ones serving. It can take as long as 8 years before the consequences of bad policy can rear its ugly head.

64 points by makaimc 7y ago

It would be interesting to see Clinton's return extended one more year. He exited right before the dotcom bubble imploded.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
And if Bush could have left a year early, Obama would have taken the fall for the entire financial crisis (well, many Republicans blame him anyways).
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  Bush was pretty unlucky. 2 massive crashes during his presidency.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    Ya, and neither were completely his fault. However, I do fault him for juicing a good economy when stimulus would be more effective during a downturn when not wasted during upturns. Save in good times, spend in bad would do a lot for stability. 2008 could have been handled much better if he was disciplined enough during the recovery in between (besides, taking more money out of the system would have acted against bubbles). In contrast, the Clinton surplus going into the dotcom bust made it much easier to deal with. Trump is making similar mistakes, and if a problem occurs on his watch, he is going to have fewer tools to deal with it (and pressuring the Fed to cut rates during a boom is unforgivable). Unfortunately, Americans seem to neither want taxes to go up or interest rates to rise in good times so they can go down in bad. They just want them to go down all the time. So we are the most at fault after all.
    - autokad 7y ago
      people forget Bush was fighting an energy recession, and those were a godsend to many. my brother used the money to apply for college and buy books to give college a go and see how it is, he's an MD now. I disagreed with almost everything Bush did, but that was not one of them. The same is true for Trump, in the sense had it not been for the Trump tax cuts, we would be in a recession right now.
      - cannonedhamster 7y ago
        How, praytell would we be in a recession right now if not for tax cuts that barely made an impact for the vast majority of Americans? The economy was good when he took it over and despite everything he's trying to do to destroy it, it seems to be getting to the point of overheating. His tariffs will cool that though as people being to feel a 20% increase in all of the good that they buy and people start losing work because there's no one able to buy. Don't forget the record highs right before the last recession. Corporate debt is at unsustainable amounts and we have to pay for our debt at some point. Money doesn't just continue to come from nothing. While I don't disagree with everything he's done, President Trump has caused lasting damage to our economy, our country, and our status in the world that will take generations to fix, if the country survives that long. We seem to be at a point where a rock and a hard place have met, that only bloodshed or external conflict will remedy. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
      - aaronbrethorst 7y ago
        A year later, it’s very clear that the tax cuts boosted gross domestic product and jobs a bit — and just for one year. Its effects are fading as U.S. GDP growth appears likely to weaken in 2019. The only thing that “rocked” were corporate profits and the stock market. And we’re facing trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-the-trump-tax-cuts-were-a-bust-2019-01-30 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-the-trump-tax...
        autokad 7y ago
        that doesn't conflict with anything i said.
KennyFromIT 7y ago
This sounds like you're suggesting to p-hack. "Let's just adjust our window because we know something is going to change and it would be interesting." Meanwhile, the results are voided. It's seemingly minor adjustments like thesr that have been causing tons of incorrect data to get published in science for way too long now.
tropo 7y ago
What is funny is that it wouldn't be fair to blame him for that inevitable crash, but it would be fair to blame him for the housing crash that happened much later. He changed the rules for mortgages. That took quite a long time to cause disaster.

whoevercares 7y ago

Nowadays you just all in the dip the moment Trump tweet anything negative(aka trade war) —— he’ll say the opposite the next day and the market will rebound magically. This brings my portfolio return 2x already. Honestly I’ll be surprised if no one in his family/asset management chain exploits this

markc 7y ago

Makes no sense to measure from day of taking office. With a 1 year offset, Trump's market goes from performing "very well" to the erratic mess that it has been ever since.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

carlivar 7y ago

I've always been more curious about this stat when: -President and Congress majority are same party (and by party) -President and Congress majority are different party. I suspect different parties are better, to reign in the excesses of each. But not sure. Maybe I'll do it some time.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
If the parties were working for the good of all Americans I think you'd be correct. The Republican party decided to literally impede anything, right or wrong that President Obama did. Democrats changed some rules for lower court justices because Republicans refused to even vote against judges just to claim Obama was leaving seats vacant. That's not governance, that's plain impeding government from doing it's job by people who don't believe government should exist. You cannot have a functional government when people meant to govern it don't believe it should exist.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sonnyblarney 7y ago

Stock variation doesn't really say much other than probably a degree of general confidence about how much profits companies can take. How about actual corporate earnings? (Thereby normalizing for wacky p/e ratios?) And what about bond yields? (Because bonds and stocks are the primary assets, valuations flow from one to the other) Interest rates? (Because cheaper Fed rates entail easy money) GDP? (Because that's a measure of the economy) Housing prices? (Because that's a measure of consumer spending, i.e. 'the rest of us') Housing starts? (A measure of business confidence in consumer) Employment? (A good measure of overall health) Inflation? (A variety of factors but it puts the others in perspective) Instead of this 'stock prices' thing they should show us all that for perspective.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

batterseapower 7y ago

Allegedly, stocks which are highly exposed to government spending outperform their low-gov-spending peers under a Dem presidency, and underperform during a GOP one: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1572801 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1572801

asaph 7y ago

It's too bad this analysis was done against the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is a price weighted index of only 30 large cap stocks and widely considered to be a poor indicator. Something like the S&P 500 index would would have been a better choice though it doesn't go as far back as the DJIA.

computerphage 7y ago
Although, the Dow doesn't really go back that far either in the sense that it swaps out stocks occasionally, which could cause spurious conclusions to be drawn if not accounted for.
- kgwgk 7y ago
  The S&P 500 does also swap stocks, and more often :-)
  - kenneth 7y ago
    If the data exists for the underlying stocks in the market, a far better indicator would be to do an IRR calculation on every stock in the market, or every stock above a certain market cap threshold (inflation-adjusted). Easy enough.
tutfbhuf 7y ago
"though it doesn't go as far back as the DJIA" That's not a big of a deal, it has been calculated backwards using historical data.

Leary 7y ago

A cut in the corporate tax rate shockingly increases equity value.

cfarm 7y ago

I wonder if most policies put in place during a president's term actually affect the next term.

desdiv 7y ago

"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans." - Robert F. Kennedy

eaenki 7y ago
The Kennedys speeches were on another level
- swarnie_ 7y ago
  What a difference 50 years have made.
B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago
That's not badly put, but aircraft carriers don't grow on trees, and it seems that historians correlate GDP with military success. Which has been bumming out people for much longer than that example of Greece becoming a province of the Roman Republic.

krzjn 7y ago

It seems to me that these results don't take into account the fact that presidents inherit the policies of the previous terms. Some presidents can ride on the coat tails of former policies and take the credit or blame just because they're the ones serving. It can take as long as 8 years before the consequences of bad policy can rear its ugly head.