President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Jeff Lebowski]

Maybe a moment of self-reflection would be if value.

OK.

Moliere, I am so sorry I suggested that you were being over-simplistic. I should have deferred to your experience as a CPA and just kept my mouth shut. I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.

[creekster]

OK.

Moliere, I am so sorry I suggested that you were being over-simplistic. I should have deferred to your experience as a CPA and just kept my mouth shut. I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.

You know, the reason you get in so many arguments is because you're never wrong.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You know, the reason you get in so many arguments is because you're never wrong.

I know, right?

[cowboy]

No, the point I have been trying to make is that I don't believe the POTUS (Trump or Clinton or Obama) has as big an impact on the market as many here seem to believe...

I agree with this. I started this conversation with a drive-by shot to demonstrate how frustrating those kinds of posts are and spent too much time arguing with you. Getting back to the original point, I think you are right. There aren't nearly enough observations to point to a simple correlation as evidence of a party's impact on markets. Clinton and Obama both took office during/after recessions, so markets would be expected to bounce in their first terms. Bush left office during the financial crisis, so obviously, he would look terrible. Like '71, I do think Trump has been a net positive on the market because of expectations that he will deregulate and be more business friendly, but I don't know how big his impact has been.

One problem with perception is that people often confuse the market with the economy. While the market is an indicator, it has grown much faster than the economy in the last nine years. This suggests that much of the Fed stimulus has been poured into Wall Street instead of Main Street (to borrow a dead horse phrase.) I hold the opinion that Obama's unfriendly attitude toward business stifled investment and is the primary reason that the stock market made a v-type recovery, but GDP (the economy) still hasn't returned to its 30-year trend line.

In short:

• Presidents can affect the market and economy, but not often, and with one notable exception, not significantly.
• The CPA thing is getting old already (another argument nobody made)
• The trigger warning for a link made me laugh - nice one
• Creekster is on my Christmas card list, too; I just never send them

[byu71]

I agree with this. I started this conversation with a drive-by shot to demonstrate how frustrating those kinds of posts are and spent too much time arguing with you. Getting back to the original point, I think you are right. There aren't nearly enough observations to point to a simple correlation as evidence of a party's impact on markets. Clinton and Obama both took office during/after recessions, so markets would be expected to bounce in their first terms. Bush left office during the financial crisis, so obviously, he would look terrible. Like '71, I do think Trump has been a net positive on the market because of expectations that he will deregulate and be more business friendly, but I don't know how big his impact has been.

One problem with perception is that people often confuse the market with the economy. While the market is an indicator, it has grown much faster than the economy in the last nine years. This suggests that much of the Fed stimulus has been poured into Wall Street instead of Main Street (to borrow a dead horse phrase.) I hold the opinion that Obama's unfriendly attitude toward business stifled investment and is the primary reason that the stock market made a v-type recovery, but GDP (the economy) still hasn't returned to its 30-year trend line.

In short:

• Presidents can affect the market and economy, but not often, and with one notable exception, not significantly.
• The CPA thing is getting old already (another argument nobody made)
• The trigger warning for a link made me laugh - nice one
• Creekster is on my Christmas card list, too; I just never send them

I actually have been thinking about how to respond. I would like to have said what Cowboy said, however as you all know I am not that articulate.

No, I am not saying this so I can get on Cowboy's Christmas card list.

[old_gregg]

I agree with this. I started this conversation with a drive-by shot to demonstrate how frustrating those kinds of posts are and spent too much time arguing with you. Getting back to the original point, I think you are right. There aren't nearly enough observations to point to a simple correlation as evidence of a party's impact on markets. Clinton and Obama both took office during/after recessions, so markets would be expected to bounce in their first terms. Bush left office during the financial crisis, so obviously, he would look terrible. Like '71, I do think Trump has been a net positive on the market because of expectations that he will deregulate and be more business friendly, but I don't know how big his impact has been.

One problem with perception is that people often confuse the market with the economy. While the market is an indicator, it has grown much faster than the economy in the last nine years. This suggests that much of the Fed stimulus has been poured into Wall Street instead of Main Street (to borrow a dead horse phrase.) I hold the opinion that Obama's unfriendly attitude toward business stifled investment and is the primary reason that the stock market made a v-type recovery, but GDP (the economy) still hasn't returned to its 30-year trend line.

In short:

• Presidents can affect the market and economy, but not often, and with one notable exception, not significantly.
• The CPA thing is getting old already (another argument nobody made)
• The trigger warning for a link made me laugh - nice one
• Creekster is on my Christmas card list, too; I just never send them

long way of saying “no”

[Moliere]

No, the point I have been trying to make is that I don't believe the POTUS (Trump or Clinton or Obama) has as big an impact on the market as many here seem to believe. Recall that I started with a claim that linking the rise in the market to Trump's election was over-simplistic, and backed that up with some essays on how there are broader factors at work. The point of the second link was that markets have often risen immediately after a democratic presidential election and fallen after a republican election, which is counterintuitive! and would further discredit the notion that Trump's election is responsible for the steady rise over the past year (or even the post-election bump).

Looking at trends over entire presidencies, Democrats will gleefully tell you that historically the market has performed better under democratic presidential tenures, which has been well-documented if you just look at the numbers. But I think that also is over-simplistic.

(trigger alert: I am going to link to another article)

From Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterla.../#6238c0e5239d



Here is the Federal Reserve study cited:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/.../200469pap.pdf

From the conclusions:



Moliere, please feel free to point out my errors!

I agree with your point about presidents not having a big impact on markets. That’s not the point I was trying to refute nor does it prove og’s rhetorical question. But congratulations on proving a point practically no one was contesting.

Presidents can have an impact though. I told people to look up bank stocks and the impacts on them due to the election. Here’s a couple of the larger banks and their one year impact on stock price. Notice what happens the day after Election Day.

Wells Fargo


JP Morgan


GS


Trumps election clearly had an impact on the entire financial services sector, probably due to the expectation of the rollback of regulations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[old_gregg]

The country, we took it over in 20 trillion you know the last eight years they borrowed more than it did in the whole history of our country. So they borrowed more than $10 trillion. Right? And yet we picked up $5.2 trillion just in the stock market. Possibly picked up the whole thing in terms of the first nine months. In terms of value. So you can say in one sense, we are really increasing values and may be in a sense, we are reducing debt. We are very honored by it and very, very happy by what's happening in Wall Street.

it must be trump’s nuanced understanding of economics that have buoyed “bank stocks.”

[frank ryan]

Kasich shares some of my concerns.

Kasich: US is 'weakening' post-WW2 alliances

"There is an issue here where we're weakening the things that we put in place after World War II to keep the world safe and reflect our values. We can't afford to walk away, Chuck. Because if we walk away, this thing collapses. And who wins? The authoritarians. The Russians and the Chinese. Not good for our country, and not good for freedom," he said.

"There is a battle now. The Russians and the Chinese want authoritarian-type government, okay? And we're walking away from our allies on trade agreements, this Iran thing, we'll see how that turns out," he continued.

Kasich's comments come after Trump dealt a blow to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal on Friday, announcing the deal was not in U.S. national security interests.

http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-t...and-guidelines

[Moliere]

it must be trump’s nuanced understanding of economics that have buoyed “bank stocks.”

:greenmonstah:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eddie]

Haha. Ok chief.

This is a really funny threadjack. I think we have literally had more posts about whether or not I was arguing with moliere or byu71 than about the original question.

OK.

Moliere, I am so sorry I suggested that you were being over-simplistic. I should have deferred to your experience as a CPA and just kept my mouth shut. I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.

The funniest part of this is that you still don't get it/see it.

I don't care if you disagree with Moliere about whether or not Trump has had any impact at all on the economy. That was NEVER my point.

What I was calling you on was your insistence that you hadn't even responded, participated in the discussion, or made any arguments - when clearly you had.

I'm not sure how you can't see that if you posted even ONE response to Moliere or BYU71 - then you DID respond.

This is silly - and I probably should've stopped long ago. So I'll bow out now if you still can't see it. I feel like I'm stuck in the Monty Python skit where the guy is paying to have an argument. "Yes you did! No I didn't!"

[Jeff Lebowski]

The funniest part of this is that you still don't get it/see it.

I don't care if you disagree with Moliere about whether or not Trump has had any impact at all on the economy. That was NEVER my point.

What I was calling you on was your insistence that you hadn't even responded, participated in the discussion, or made any arguments - when clearly you had.

I'm not sure how you can't see that if you posted even ONE response to Moliere or BYU71 - then you DID respond.

This is silly - and I probably should've stopped long ago. So I'll bow out now if you still can't see it. I feel like I'm stuck in the Monty Python skit where the guy is paying to have an argument. "Yes you did! No I didn't!"

Oh brother.

If this is such a big deal to you, go back and read the thread a little more carefully this time. The bolded part is a flat-out lie. Cowboy said the following:

Lol at an attorney and and engineer arguing market drivers with an accountant and a professional money manager.

I replied by saying that I never responded to BYU71 (the "professional money manager"), which is true. Nor had old_gregg, other than ask him one question which BYU71 summarily dismissed. I never once claimed that I hadn't responded to Moliere, only that my grand total of 4 posts were being mischaracterized. They seemed so simple and innocuous to me that I wouldn't consider them "arguing", but if you do, then swell for you. I honestly don't give two shits at this point.

[creekster]

Oh brother.

If this is such a big deal to you, go back and read the thread a little more carefully this time. The bolded part is a flat-out lie. Cowboy said the following:



I replied by saying that I never responded to BYU71 (the "professional money manager"), which is true. Nor had old_gregg, other than ask him one question which BYU71 summarily dismissed. I never once claimed that I hadn't responded to Moliere, only that my grand total of 4 posts were being mischaracterized. They seemed so simple and innocuous to me that I wouldn't consider them "arguing", but if you do, then swell for you. I honestly don't give two shits at this point.

I guess that self-reflection thing didnt work out too well, eh? Too bad. But it's nice to see that it's not a big deal to you, and that youre keeping it in perspective here.

[old_gregg]

:greenmonstah:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

curious response bro

[BlueK]

I agree with your point about presidents not having a big impact on markets. That’s not the point I was trying to refute nor does it prove og’s rhetorical question. But congratulations on proving a point practically no one was contesting.

Presidents can have an impact though. I told people to look up bank stocks and the impacts on them due to the election. Here’s a couple of the larger banks and their one year impact on stock price. Notice what happens the day after Election Day.

Wells Fargo


JP Morgan


GS


Trumps election clearly had an impact on the entire financial services sector, probably due to the expectation of the rollback of regulations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The markets have responded positively to exactly one thing, which is Trump removing many Obama-instituted regulations as well as removing the fear of future unknown regulations companies lived under with Obama.

The worry I have is that if Trump can somehow push through and implement his more radical anti-trade and "slam the country's doors the hell shut" anti-immigration ideas, that it will be very harmful to the markets and the economy. Ironically, in my opinion, his success in getting these ideas passed would end up being the one thing that would ultimately cause his supporters to turn on him as the negative results would hurt his base the most.