Skip to main content

As Elizabeth Warren seems to be the Dem front-runner for now, I'm seeing a lot of Warren will be bad for the stock market commentary. This of of course was a big fear ahead of President Obama's inauguration too. A little history;

LBJ--equities did well
Nixon-- equities did very badly
Carter--equities did very badly
Reagan--equities did very well
Bush 41-- equities did badly
Clinton-- equities did very well
Bush 43-- equities did badly
Obama-- there was the same fear about him as Warren and they skyrocketed
Trump-- equities have been stagnant for about 21 months
Since Trump's inauguration the S&P 500 is up 29%. At this point in Obama's first term it was up 48%.

The notion that one party is better or worse for stocks is absurd. The market has an up year 72% of the time. It has done very well under both parties and done very poorly under both parties. The point is to leave your political biases out of your stock market participation, the party in office means nothing. Whether stocks do well or do poorly under the next president will have nothing to do with their party.

Before anyone adds 1+1 and gets eleven, I've been a Libertarian for many years and I dislike both of the major parties.

Whenever the stock market starts to rollover again, regardless of who is in the White House or whatever "causes" it, I will do the same thing for clients that I always do, start to take defensive action slowly as true bear markets give several months before they hit hardest. Where investing is concerned, the things that matter most are staying disciplined and not succumbing to emotion.

The picture in the header of this post is Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde National Park and since this was kind of a heavy post, a bonus picture of a BLM wildland fire truck (the numbering indicates it's a Type 3 but it looks like a Type 4) in Moab, UT.

Image placeholder title