[Entropy]

(03-03-2012 01:51 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

(03-01-2012 12:15 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  

The chart makes sense.

Contrary to popular belief, investing in the stock market is not how the rich make their money.

The rich keep their money by having their taxes cut.

A robust stock market is good for middle class earners who have been contributing to their 401k's for years. (Pension funds, too.)

Republicans do whatever they can to cut taxes on the already-rich. Republicans do not want anyone else getting rich.

Republicans are the ultimate haters.

Anyone who trades the markets knows that institutional buyers (largely fund managers) move the market. Those are the wealthy "fat cats" on wall street. The money they save every year in any tax cut is peanuts compared to what they make in the market in a given month.

I didnt even see this earlier. smitty is right on this. Just look up the earnings of those hedge funds guys. Look at the return they gave their clients(other fat cats.). You can go beyond hedge funds and look at other asset management companies too..

http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/2011/03/14/

Rank Fund Manager 2010 Earnings (Billions)
1 John Paulson 4
2 Warren Buffett 3
3 James Simons 2.1
4 Ray Dalio 2
5 Carl Icahn 2
6 Steve Cohen 1.6
7 David Tepper 1.5
8 Bruce Kovner 1
9 Ron Perelman 1
10 Edward Lampert 0.6
11 Noam Gottesman 0.5
12 Ted Forstmann 0.5
13 George Soros 0.5
14 Glenn Dubin 0.4
15 James Coulter 0.4
16 T. Boone Pickens 0.3
17 Michael Hintze 0.3
18 Peter Thiel 0.3
19 Marc Rowan 0.3
20 Richard Chilton 0.3
21 Ken Fisher 0.3
22 Jonathan Nelson 0.3
23 Leon G. Cooperman 0.3
24 Ken Griffin 0.3
25 Thomas Lee 0.2
26 Louis Bacon 0.2
27 George Argyros 0.2
28 Stephen Mandel 0.2
29 Israel Englander 0.2
30 Philip Falcone 0.2
31 Henry Swieca 0.1
32 Michael Price 0.1
33 Marc Lasry 0.1
34 Wilbur Ross 0.1
35 David Bonderman 0.1
36 Michael Milken 0.1
37 Bill Gross 0.1
38 Julian Robertson 0.1
39 David Rubenstein 0.1
40 Paul Tudor Jones 0.1
41 Howard Marks 0.05
42 Bruce Karsh 0.05

[JayMillz]

Stocks record biggest gains of year; Dow up 218

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stocks-rec...56621.html

[portofmanteau]

You're pretty close. Wall Street generally cheers when the executive is held by one party, and the legislative is held by another. The correlation ends up being significantly higher in that case.. An argument as to why would be that neither party can pass significant legislation in that case, so the street can come up with new financial instruments with little fear of regulation or major rule changes.

(03-01-2012 11:08 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

What about this:

Some of the difference may stem from the fact that every Republican president since at least the end of World War II has faced a recession during his first term in office, Stovall said. Nine of 11 recessions that began since 1945 -- and seven of eight since Kennedy ran for president in 1960 --started with Republicans in the Oval Office.

Buddy, if it was as straightforward as this, every motherf***er on Wall St could pack his bags and go straight home because we'd all know we just needed to sit tight while waiting for the next Democractic President.

Not only this, but how much economic policy can a President enact anyways? If congress is against him? Clinton did well with a Republican congress. The economy in the US seems like it might be making a turn-around. With a Republican congress AGAIN.

Reagan had to contend with a Democrat congress, and things went pretty well under him for a while there, too. Is this making sense?

Are you factoring in US monetary policy as well? What about Greenspan, Volker and Bernanke? Does your dependent variable (stock market performance) not depend on that either?

Your night-club analogy is oversimplified and useless. The economy is a complex system politicians love to tinker with, and very few people have any idea of the parameters involved, transposed by matrices of untold numbers of vectors. It's a complicated reality that is so hard to model we educate and train thousands of professionals to do nothing but mess around with data and develop regressions just to get an inkling of how to go about compressing all those factors into a useful model.

If the economy was like a nightclub we could all go home right now... but it's not.

If ANYTHING the best situation is a President of one party working with a Congress of the other party, but even this is hard to justify.

[MikeCF]

Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial average was at 8,077.

Today it's at 13,185.89.

If you had invested in the stock market on the day Obama took office, you'd have more than doubled your money.

[canucktraveller]

(03-14-2012 02:31 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial average was at 8,077.

Today it's at 13,185.89.

If you had invested in the stock market on the day Obama took office, you'd have more than doubled your money.

What? Saying that if you had invested in the stock market your money would have more than doubled is a rather silly statement. Investors in RIMM, BBI and BP surely didn't double their money during that time. If you meant investing in a Dow etf than yes. A lot of big companies haven't recovered from the collapse.



Like someone else said, the market was at an unsustainable low when he took office, it had nowhere to go but up. Hell a lot of analysts are predicting a crash before his term is up so don't be too quick on the draw

[thegmanifesto]

(03-14-2012 04:43 PM)canucktraveller Wrote:  

(03-14-2012 02:31 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial average was at 8,077.

Today it's at 13,185.89.

If you had invested in the stock market on the day Obama took office, you'd have more than doubled your money.

What? Saying that if you had invested in the stock market your money would have more than doubled is a rather silly statement. Investors in RIMM, BBI and BP surely didn't double their money during that time. If you meant investing in a Dow etf than yes. A lot of big companies haven't recovered from the collapse.

Of course that is what he ment. Or S&P etf.

Also, BP had a little problem with an oil spill if you recall and subsequent litigation (which is being worked on now).

Quote:

Like someone else said, the market was at an unsustainable low when he took office, it had nowhere to go but up.

That is easy to say now isn't it?

You must have gone "all in" then. That is great that you picked the bottom.

How does it feel to double your money in the last few years?

[portofmanteau]

(03-14-2012 04:48 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

How does it feel to double your money in the last few years?

It feels awesome. Now it's about time to get out.

[MikeCF]

(03-14-2012 04:43 PM)canucktraveller Wrote:  

Like someone else said, the market was at an unsustainable low when he took office, it had nowhere to go but up. Hell a lot of analysts are predicting a crash before his term is up so don't be too quick on the draw

How would your Republican/George W. Bush portfolio have performed?

Just go here.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX%3A.DJI

Plug in the date W. took office and the day he left.

What would have been your return on investment?