Dr Winston O'Boogie;1864822 wrote:Trump has had nothing to do with that. Presidents don't drive the stock market.

Thanks.

President's can drive policy initiatives that reduce regulatory burdens, taxes, unfair trade, and other factors that drive costs, which then lead to greater competitiveness and business profits, which drives equity prices.

Take care.

QuakerOats;1864875 wrote:Thanks.

President's can drive policy initiatives that reduce regulatory burdens, taxes, unfair trade, and other factors that drive costs, which then lead to greater competitiveness and business profits, which drives equity prices.

Take care.

I think you are over simplifying how much impact the President has on the market.
I highly doubt you would give Bill Clinton the same credit for the 1990s boom would you?

The President is one part of how the markets operate, but just one part. Many other factors, many that are not political, shape the stock market.

ptown_trojans_1;1864877 wrote:I think you are over simplifying how much impact the President has on the market.

That market has been pricing in corporate tax cuts. There are a lot of moving parts, but an analysis I saw on Seeking Alpha had 4 scenarios yielding from 6.1-14.5% gains...I'd say the market has priced in at least 6%.

It's not for much he's actually done, but it's pretty clear the markets have rallied considerably on expectations of pro growth policies, in stark contrast to surprisingly NOT having 4-8 more years of the Obama regime.

gut;1864879 wrote:That market has been pricing in corporate tax cuts. There are a lot of moving parts, but an analysis I saw on Seeking Alpha had 4 scenarios yielding from 6.1-14.5% gains...I'd say the market has priced in at least 6%.

It's not for much he's actually done, but it's pretty clear the markets have rallied considerably on expectations of pro growth policies, in stark contrast to surprisingly NOT having 4-8 more years of the Obama regime.

Now there I would partially agree. It is not so much for what he has done, but more hope of what he can do, but just as importantly, what Congress can do, on taxes and growth.
Trump is just one player, but Congress is just as equally a player. Even the Fed has a role. It is all on the hope that the country can grow and that they can get some sort of tax cut/ reform done.
The reports last week that GDP grew by like 2.6% were great.

Still, sure this is nice, but I'm not a fan of Trump claiming the stock market as a successful barometer. Markets are complex beasts and could easily nose dive due to something not even remotely attached to Trump, like say a war in the Middle East or something internal in China.

I'll also add that the debt ceiling is coming up next month. If that is not handled correctly, all the nice gains over the past months will be washed away.

ptown_trojans_1;1864877 wrote:I think you are over simplifying how much impact the President has on the market.
I highly doubt you would give Bill Clinton the same credit for the 1990s boom would you?

The President is one part of how the markets operate, but just one part. Many other factors, many that are not political, shape the stock market.

Obviously

ptown_trojans_1;1864880 wrote:Now there I would partially agree. It is not so much for what he has done, but more hope of what he can do, but just as importantly, what Congress can do, on taxes and growth.
Trump is just one player, but Congress is just as equally a player. Even the Fed has a role. It is all on the hope that the country can grow and that they can get some sort of tax cut/ reform done.
The reports last week that GDP grew by like 2.6% were great.

Still, sure this is nice, but I'm not a fan of Trump claiming the stock market as a successful barometer. Markets are complex beasts and could easily nose dive due to something not even remotely attached to Trump, like say a war in the Middle East or something internal in China.

I'll also add that the debt ceiling is coming up next month. If that is not handled correctly, all the nice gains over the past months will be washed away.

Funny I don't remember reading this same analysis when Sleeper was giving Obama credit for the stock market.

gosh the three biggest losers, all Republicans

[FONT=&quot]"Trump obviously is taking credit for a lot of this, as almost any president would do, but the things that affect the market right now aren't things that have been put in place over the last six months," said Randy Frederick, vice president of trading and derivatives at the Schwab Center for Financial Research.[/FONT]

salto;1865000 wrote:[FONT=&amp]"Trump obviously is taking credit for a lot of this, as almost any president would do, but the things that affect the market right now aren't things that have been put in place over the last six months," said Randy Frederick, vice president of trading and derivatives at the Schwab Center for Financial Research.[/FONT]

Strangely, in December the Schwab folks were happy to predict the market would go up in 2017 because of Trump being in office:

"US stocks could reach new highs in 2017 amid expectations that Trump's platform will make additional tax reductions and increased corporate spending possible, leading to stronger corporate earnings growth."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/schwab-sees-stock-market-following-a-winding-road-higher-in-2017-2016-12-27

The thing about the Obama market is the Fed literally bought and paid for about half those returns - a stark contrast to a Reagan who was raising rates way beyond anything you've ever seen to crush inflation.

Plus coming in off of the worst recession/bear market in 80 years....truthfully Obama's economic record is very mediocre. Unfortunately, he will get credit for the 60% of growth and returns his communist policies weren't able to destroy....but we should have had double what we did.

If course the stock market is going to take off during a dems presidency. People are hiding their money from the taxes.

superman;1864908 wrote:Funny I don't remember reading this same analysis when Sleeper was giving Obama credit for the stock market.

I don't remember that particular post, but I have long stated on here the President has limited impact on domestic policy and the economy. Congress, the markets themselves, and the Fed have more of an impact than the President.

ptown_trojans_1;1865042 wrote:I don't remember that particular post, but I have long stated on here the President has limited impact on domestic policy and the economy.

Which is funny, because I don't think the POTUS does much to shape foreign policy. They all talk a big game, but for the most part unless you're a total policy wonk you don't know who did and didn't do what.

The POTUS has a pretty significant impact on domestic policy and the economy, but much longer term and the impact doesn't usually happen in 6 or 12 months, and sometimes a year and a half or more. Just ask any business owner about Obama era regulations and come back and tell me the POTUS doesn't impact that stuff.

isadore;1864915 wrote:

Nice try at manipulation through selective sample size. Just prior to his election the market approached 14,000; it barely exceeded that after his 8 years, in a post-recession time period, no less. Lousy.

Spock;1865021 wrote:If course the stock market is going to take off during a dems presidency. People are hiding their money from the taxes.

Wow you are dumb.

QuakerOats;1865047 wrote:Nice try at manipulation through selective sample size. Just prior to his election the market approached 14,000; it barely exceeded that after his 8 years, in a post-recession time period, no less. Lousy.

OK

SportsAndLady;1865049 wrote:Wow you are dumb.

He's a union protected employee who teaches kickball to kids, what do you expect?

http://freebeacon.com/politics/huckabee-sanders-blasts-media-misleading-russia-coverage/

In one minute Huckabee-Sanders lays it all out there. And I can guarantee that her comments will never be heard on any major (fake) media outlet.

SportsAndLady;1865049 wrote:Wow you are dumb.

not hardly

Spock;1865021 wrote:If course the stock market is going to take off during a dems presidency. People are hiding their money from the taxes.

Hahaha....ok so given Trump's new immigration proposal with T. Cotton for intelligent migrants with skills who can speak English when does Trump start advocating for the expulsion of native-born with none of the above like his biggest fan CCRunner???

QuakerOats;1865047 wrote:Nice try at manipulation through selective sample size. Just prior to his election the market approached 14,000; it barely exceeded that after his 8 years, in a post-recession time period, no less. Lousy.

LOL, Obama was handed the worst economic situation in 80 years by his REPUBLICAN Predecessor. And he
"Since Obama's first inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, U.S. equities have surged 12% a year, not counting dividends, in what turned out to be the second-longest bull market in history.

To put that in perspective, those price gains were nearly four percentage points per year more than domestic equities have averaged since the end of World War II. They also compare favorably to the 4.6% annual losses suffered by the S&P 500 index of U.S. stocks under the eight years of Obama's predecessor, President George W. Bush.
Here's one other way to think about it: If during the upcoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump, the stock market were to replicate the success it enjoyed under Obama, rising by a factor of 2.5, then the Dow Jones industrial average -- which currently stands at just under the 20,000 level -- would have to climb all the way up to 50,000.

http://time.com/money/4636241/stock-market-investments-presidents-obama/

The recession ended 5 months into Obama's first term. In other words, the "shitty" economy and market Obama "inherited" had, literally, nowhere to go but up.

Bush had the misfortune of having his his term bookended by significant recessions and bear markets. Recessions and bear markets are inevitable - instead, focus on the recovery and performance in between....and then you see the mediocre economy Obama actually presided over.

Justifiable criticism of the Bush economy would instead focus on the juicing of the economy and markets with artificially low interest rates (sound familiar?) and a bunch of financial services job that didn't create much real value (sound familiar?).

BoatShoes;1865256 wrote:Hahaha....ok so given Trump's new immigration proposal with T. Cotton for intelligent migrants with skills who can speak English when does Trump start advocating for the expulsion of native-born with none of the above like his biggest fan CCRunner???

Lol now you're talking. It makes me lol when people who speak terrible English want to talk about immigrants being able to "talk good English". I'm all for an English requirement and I think we should start locally and then deport anyone who can't pass.

FatHobbit;1865270 wrote:....I think we should start locally and then deport anyone who can't pass.

I'd settle for having to pass a test to vote :laugh:

LMAO....everyone talking about "Dow record highs" when that is only 30 mega-cap stocks. The indices that matter to the vast majority of investors are down, significantly, the past two days.