August 11, 2012 - 1:55 pm
I saw over at Rasmussen Reports a headline that read ”49% of investors have lost money over the past year” yet over at CNBC, there is an article stating that Obama has been one of the best presidents for stock investors since World War II. This makes no sense to me. Can anyone explain this?
I think it has something to do with the fact that there are those who will always be treated with respect, and those who have to justify everything they do because no one gives them any credit. Happens in all walks of life, at all levels. Obama is in the first column.
As a matter of fact, in one of those strange moments we all have, I felt so good about the President’s stock market mojo that I just donated to his campaign. First time for everything, I guess.
– I just donated to the Romney-Ryan Restore America campaign.
Well, to each his own. I mean, I don’t particularly care if Obama wins, but I’ve had it with playing for the losers.
I’ve got this bridge in Brooklyn, if you’re interested.
they can both be true – you have the 51% moron, anything the O contributes to is good side at CNBC, and the non-kool aid real world 49% at Rasmussen….or not?
1. In an average year 51% of “active” investors lose money in the market.
2. CNBC counts from Jan 2009 to the present, from the bottom of that hole to today looks like a huge increase in a short time. That it’s a *recovery* not an increase, and that it’s based on the fed’s printing $3t and the treasury borrowing $4t, is hardly worth mentioning I guess.
It’s like the family next door enjoying the yacht they just bought on credit, up to the week when it’s repossessed and they’re hauled into court. Celebrate, it’s great with all these food stamps and debt! The numbers prove it, hoorah!
Bingo. Obama came into office when the stock market was near its low. It had nowhere to go but up. Unfortunately, its rise was due to companies improving their bottom line by becoming more efficient, leaner, and oftentimes, firing people. He can’t take credit for one without getting credit for the other.
Having said that, there is something wonky about this stock market being so disconnected from unemployment and weak consumer spending, IMHO. Although my bottom line is back to where it was pre-recession, I’m nervous. The party is not going to last if employment doesn’t start going up, and fast. Obama may not have been responsible for what has happened up to 2012, but as far as I’m concerned, he owns it now.
Note that CNBC doesn’t compare the returns to inflation.
Yes, I can explain it. It’s on CNBC. If Obama burned down the White House, they’d say he’s found a way to save on cleaning costs.
CNBC, especially the web site, is very nearly non-partisan and by far the best of the current NBC properties.
The bottom of the market crash was in early 2009, when the Criminal in Chief was annointed.
Since then, the market has rebounded to about 90% of the Oct 2007 high.
So they are claiming that the menace is responsible for about a 100% increase in the stock market (from the low until now), which is an annualized gain of about 22% per year.
But of course, it’s all how you spin it. Since the policies he supported (Loans to Deadbeats) were the underlying cause for the crash and our horrible economy, and since his backers like Soros caused the crash in the first place to get him elected, and since the reason for the rebound is really that businesses dramatically slashed costs (i.e., laid off workers and cut other costs) in order to remain in business (i.e., they maintained their profits so they could survive), you have to be totally ignorant to attibute even a tiny iota of it to obama. He is clearly the most anti-business politician in this country, ever.
Also note that the stock market had some very favorable upticks during the Great Depression. Ironically, and thankfully, even in bad economic times smart businesses can make profits and increase their share prices.
The gain since the trough of early 2009 isn’t related to obama’s disastrous actions in any way.
Even if obama lies his way to another victory, the market will survive and will have other bull periods. There probably will be a severe drop in the first few months of a new term, but businesses will adjust, profits will return and the market will head back up. What the moron doesn’t understand is that without profits, there are no businesses, and without businesses, the economy reverts to medieval levels….just as the USSR and Red China did. In this country, many businesses are going to survive and thrive even with the marxist in charge. It will take more even than another term to drive America out of business completely.
The real question is whether he can reach the tipping point during a second trm. Personally, I think he will, and that the crash, not of the market but of the entire country, should he win again, will happen sometime between 2016 and 2020. He won’t want to be around when that occurs because even the greatest liar ever born will have a hard time blaming THAT on somebody else.
Here’s the whole story.
http://www.google.com/finance/historical?cid=983582&startdate=Jul+1%2C+2008&enddate=Aug+12%2C+2012&num=30
Things hit bottom on exactly Jan 20, 2009. The DJIA is back to pre-crash levels, but just so. However, overall, people lost hugely on real estate, and net worth is still way down. And so is employment.
There’s also a theory that Wall Street has already factored in a Romney win. That would be consistent with the pattern.
Finally, a lot of Europeans are heading for the relative safety of the US market. As badly as Obama has had sexual relations with the canine, the Euros have been having said sexual relations with their canine for much longer.
Obama has not been good for the stock market. The stock market is being propped up by Helicopter Ben Bernanke and his QEasings. The Fed, in an effort to “force” investment, has driven the interest rate on Treasury bonds to about 1% and short term rates (money markets et al) to near zero. The natural constituencies for these instruments, retirees, pension funds, etc, cannot get by on the meager returns and have been driven into the stock market. The price of mediocre dividend stocks has been going up as these financial refugees flood in in search of SOME kind of return.
This is not Barack Obama’s doing. Barack Obama wouldn’t know a stock market from Whole Foods. And he couldn’t care less except as something else to claim credit for even though he had nothing much to do with it.
Bingo. The fact that the market is doing well while O is in the White House has very little to do with O being in the White House. It has to do with capitalism, which is anethema to Obama.
If something economically positive is going on, rest assured the press will attribute it to Obama. If something negative is going on, it will be chalked up to the Bush legacy. This is the playbook. No one should be surprised at this point.
It depends on definitions and expectations. I define the stock market to be back at 100% or higher or we have not recovered. It is at 90%, not even adjusting for inflation. IOW, we have a ways to go, yet. No full recovery, yet.
I expect robust trading, as when people are optimistic. Volume is pathetically low. That means there are not many investment opportunities. People are holding onto the few good stocks. Few are willing to gamble.
Gold is still outrageously priced vis-a-vis historical markers. Why is it so high? Self-defense, lack of confidence.
This President has been horrible for the stock market. It is just that our expectations and definitions are wrong. After 3.5 years and an economic “recovery”, the market should be above 15k, and there should be robust trading. It’s not, and there is not. Sure, it might look good compared to disaster, but that is a very low bar to clear, no?
Short version: Compared to what? What are your standards?
Dr. Helen, when the rest of the world is doing so bad that money flees to the relatively safe harbor of the US and when interest rates are as low as they are, the scared money will find its way into equities in some ways and institutional investors have to buy into the market to avoid those same low, low interest rates, the market will rise. And the M&M shell thin analysis of CNBC sees a market rising so -presto!- Obama must be good for investors!
As an earlier commenter noted, the massive pumping of faux money in the QEs also pushes the numbers up. But a hard rain’s gonna fall.