Friday, December 25, 2009, 5:18PM ET - U.S. Markets Closed for Christmas.

Jeremy Siegel, Ph.D. The Future for Investors

Jeremy Siegel, Ph.D., The Future for Investors

Which Party Is Better for Stocks?

by Jeremy Siegel, Ph.D.

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story
Very Good (980 Ratings)
3.1816326/5
Posted on Friday, August 29, 2008, 12:00AM

I would venture to say that most investors, especially those with substantial portfolios, are Republicans. After all, the GOP is the party that champions free markets, capital accumulation, and low taxes, principles that appeal to wealthy investors.

And historically, the initial reaction of the market to a Republican presidential victory confirms this thesis. During the last 120 years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.7% on the day following a Republican victory in the presidential elections while it has fallen 0.5% the day after a Democrat captured the White House

However, a closer look tells a far different story. Over that same 120 year period, the average annual stock market return has totaled only 8.25% under Republican rule, while it has returned 10.85% with Democrats in power.

Over the past 60 years, this trend has been more pronounced. The Democrats have held the presidency only 41% of that time, but under their rule the average annual return has been 15.26%, more than six percentage points higher than the 9.01% return under Republicans.

Good and Bad Presidencies

Returns during the last two administrations support these conclusions. The return on the market under the Clinton administration (1992-2000) was 19% per year, the highest of any president since Calvin Coolidge led the country in the mid 1920s.

On the contrary, the real return so far under G.W. Bush has been a measly 0.22%, and an even worse minus 2.69% return once inflation is subtracted. This return is the second worst of the postwar period, exceeded only by the negative 7% real return under the Nixon administration. In fact the Nixon and Bush Republican administrations were the only two periods since The Great Depression when shareholders suffered after-inflation losses in the stock market.

The worst real stock returns over the last 120 years were suffered under Hoover, who captured the White House on November 6, 1928. That was not a propitious time to start investing in stocks. Less than a year later, the Great Stock Crash overwhelmed equities and the subsequent bear market eventually drove down stock prices a record 89%. Investors who bought stock when Hoover was elected lost more than 20% per year before he was voted out of office in November 1932.

The stock market under Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, who was much despised by Republicans and other free-marketers during his record 13-year hold on the presidency, actually did well. Stocks experienced real returns of nearly 9% a year from 1932 to 1945, considerably above the 6.5% average real returns on the market. Returns under Roosevelt were good since he became president when stock prices were low and the US was wrapping up its victory in World War II when Roosevelt suddenly died.

Gridlock Is Good

But who controls the presidency is not the only influence on stock returns. Congress also turns out to be very important. And despite all the hand-wringing about Congressional gridlock, the market does best when Congress is controlled by a different party than the presidency.

Here are the facts. Since 1948, stock returns have averaged 13.89% when there has been a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. But returns have been a whopping 22.4% when there has been a Democratic president and the opposition Republicans have controlled the Congress.

The same phenomenon occurs when the Republicans have occupied the White House. Returns have averaged only 9.77% when the Republicans controlled Congress as well as the presidency. But these returns were boosted to 10.76% when the opposition Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and a robust 16% when Congress was split between the Democrats and Republicans.

This means that the margin by which stock returns under Democratic presidents beat the returns under Republicans is cut in half when the same party controls both Congress and the White House.

Lessons for the Upcoming Elections

Since Congress is certain to stay Democratic after this November's election, it might be good for the stock market to have a Republican president. Keeping a check on a free-spending Congress is in investors' interests.

But remember, elections are far from the only factor influencing stock returns. The 2000-2002 bear market that followed the technology bubble would have been equally disastrous even if Al Gore received a few more votes in Florida and had been selected president in November 2000. And Hoover's fate was sealed once the market hit speculative highs in 1929.

So don't time the market to the elections. Studies have shown that buying stocks when prices are reasonable, as they are now, will be a long-run winning strategy no matter who is elected president.

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story

Rate This story

Very Good (980 Ratings)
3/5
Sign-in to rate!

325 Comments

Showing comments 6-35 of 325<< PreviousNext >>
Sort: first to last

  • JWA - Saturday, September 20, 2008, 4:46PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    The logic presented here does not make sense. If what you say is true that a republican in office, while democrats have congress, then there is less return on investments in the stock market than if there was a democrat in office (and as you predict democrats control congress). Then why would you say something like "It might be good for the stock market to have a republican president."? This statement contradicts all of your findings, and you resort to the "Keeping a check on a free-spending Congress is in investors' interests" argument even though you don't present ANY evidence suggesting this to be true. Your article's conclusion does not even come close to making logical sense when you talk about Al Gore not being able to handle such a disastrous "bubble" crash. Now this non sequitur point has no bearing or relevance to your purpose in writing this piece to begin with. If your purpose is to write about the stock market returns under presidents, then how does Al Gore and congress spending have to do with those stock market returns. Next your conclusion goes on some nonsense about "Studies have shown that buying stocks when prices are reasonable will be a long-run winning strategy...". Can you explain "reasonable" price and how to quantify reasonable price? should "Bubble" bursts constitute reasonable price? aside from the ubiquitous, and border-line hearsay, "Studies have shown..." argument this still suggests that any stock is worth buying now, because it may go up? How much of these "Reasonably" priced stocks do we buy? when do we sell these "Reasonably" priced stocks? It is sad that Wharton Business School hired you in the first place to present your opinion without any real thinking behind it. In the end it just sounds like you did not do any thinking ( something academics should do best), presented your opinion rather than fact. AND aside from your opinion, make blatant contradictions with your own arguments and evidence. Try again next time Professor.

  • Stephen M - Friday, September 19, 2008, 1:44PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Spoken like a true Republican. Siegel says that "The 2000-2002 bear market that followed the technology bubble would have been equally disastrous even if Al Gore . . . had been selected president in November 2000." Perhaps. But Gore, like his predessor, probably would have continued the practice of balanced budgets, certainly wouldn't have cut taxes without cutting spending, and definitely would not have got us in that stupid war in Iraq. Deficit spending, the tax cuts and the war are what are killing our economy.

  • Maria - Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 7:21PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    To Siegel, Orphic and the other losers who claim to know it all - read these facts from an article by Bill Deener - Dallas Morning News... He put it most clearly of al those writing the opposite of Mr slanted Siegel. Republicans were BETTER you goofs. Go recrunch your stilted numbers to make your case - I aint buying it. The actions of the Republicans are known to be pro-business -and your number slanting cant hide the truth. The data below is truthful - looked into myself, so tough. His article states... Both Democrats and Republicans like to say they are the more "market friendly" ones. The truth is, neither party can lay much of a claim to being the exclusive party of a rising stock market. It all depends on which time period is examined. "If you look at different time frames, you will come up with completely different conclusions," said Eric Bjorgen, market analyst at the Leuthold Group, a Minneapolis money-management firm. "And that means there really is no causal relationship that investors can bank on." Republicans might want to boast that the Dow Jones industrial average gained an average 12.7 percent in the first year (200 trading days) following the seven presidential elections they won from 1896 to 1944. That compares with only a 0.1 percent gain in the Dow in the year following the five Democratic wins during this period. But pick a different time frame — from 1944 to the present — and the results flip-flop. The market was up an average 8.2 percent in the first year after seven Democratic presidential wins during that period compared with a loss of 0.7 percent for the eight Republican wins. When both periods are combined — from 1896 to the present — the average one-year market returns are about 5 percent for both parties — 5.4 percent for Republicans and 4.7 percent for Democrats. Still, voters typically re-elect incumbent presidents if the economy is strong and bring in a new party when it is weak.

  • TN - Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 3:06PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    I did the research and the math: Data to confirm the Economy and Stock market performs better under Democratic Administration http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php Excerpt from article: "Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year."... **Hence the reason why the stock market performs better, because more people across all classes are benefiting from an increase income; as such, there is an increase in spending (which is reflected in the bottom line of public companies' annual performance which is translated to better stock performance), and there is also an increase in the number of investors and money contributed to the investing pool. ..."Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)"... In 2000 (Clinton's last year in office) we had a record budget surplus of $230 Billion: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ The Republicans wanted to use this money to cut taxes, but Clinton was against this because it would only benefit a few (the top 5%) and he felt there were smarter ways to spend this money: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/22/clinton.and.gop.radio/ Now in 2008 (Bush's last year in office): we have a record budget deficit of $389 Billion: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_go_co/budget_deficit Here is a budget deficit/surplus chart from 1963 thru 2003 which invalidates the theory of the 7 year delay... : http://www.eriposte.com/economy/indicators/bush_deficit_graphic.gif For some odd reason some people are under the impression that our economy performed best during the Reagan administration, which is not true - only top 20% of the income earners benefited (the Upper and Middle classes - please note the definition/classification of middle class back then is different from today). As a matter of fact the income gap began to widen, in 1981 the top 20% now had 44.4% of the income which was up from 43% in 1969. Reagan's tax cuts resulted in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer - the tax burden was shifted away from the richest 5% to the poorest. That "trickle-down" theory was a bunch of bologna. The Bush's simply followed suit! The current economic downturn is largely due to the sub-prime debacle. The majority of those risky loans were granted during the Bush Administration. The unscrupulous behaviors of the rich executives of those Commercial and Investment Banks which issued/packaged/sold/purchased those risky loans and CDOs completed these deals during an administration they knew would tolerate those shameful actions (a great deal of them are Bush’s big business cronies who contributed to his election/re-election campaign). The executives used the stockholders investments to finance the bulk of those risks, for example take a look at Bear Stearns' balance sheet and debt-equity ratio.

  • dan r - Monday, September 8, 2008, 12:44AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    for all of you who think that the republicans are to blame. take this into consideration. it takes the economy about 7yrs to fell the effects of the president. and with all of our jobs going to mexico. here is one person to thank for that and one bill that screwed the working man and that was the NAFTA (North American Free Trade) Act which let companies movie out of the us and let them bring the goods back to the us with out paying taxes on it. and its been about 7yrs give or take a few. thanks Clinton your the best, and THANKS for looking out for the working man. JACKASS :p

  • Karen - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 11:08PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    No other President had to answer to the events on 9/11. How about putting the blame where it belongs. Making up for the inept cuts in defense and failure to secure the nation left plenty of surplus cash during the Clinton administation. Osama bin Laden was in custody and (I believe) Chad offered to hand him over to us after he attacked the USS Cole. Clinton did not want him because he said we did not have jusidiction. If he had a spine thousands of people would not have died and we would not be at war. This grade school article should have mentioned the major events rather than trying to sway votes woth numbers alone. Please publish articles with integrity!

  • The Truth - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 10:09PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Their is no correlation in the way this is presented. Facts - Republicans in modern times get stuck with cleaning up foreign policy of asleep-at-the-wheel dems - going back to Carter. This costs $$$ and has actually hurt the markets. Housing is due to GREEDY AMERICANS - not Bush - people who bought too much house for what they can afford - idiots. Now we all pay for it. Both paties screwed up on driling - but recently is more the Dems like Pelosi who wont even allow a vote. Also, the sectors of the markets tell a different story - go look at techs vs manufacturing vs financials rather than the average. Republicans are good for business - dems are good for sectors that feed the welfare state they have created since the 1960's - big deal. We will see that this is all crap when Obama wins and the massive tax campaign cripples an already hurting economy. The market will be below 10000 by Christmas.

  • Olivia K - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 9:03PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Republicans always ruin the economy. It's not because of conservative policies, it's the lack of integrity leading to large scale corruption like the Iran Contra affair, Troopergate, Watergate, the Keating Five scandal etc ... I really wish I had an alternative to voting Democrat, being a lifelong conservative. But with the Republican party being so badly infested with corruption and embarassing scandals I'm pretty much stuck.

  • lost citizen - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 8:41PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    i am 70 yrs. old and have never and will never vote for a republican president as i have never seen good returns with any of them in office from ike to the present.

  • chippy - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 6:08PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    This is a very silly article. It is embarssing it was published and people take it seriously. This is the type of article I might have written when I was a college freshman. For example, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act caused the Depression. Now, the Democratic Party are the tarriff party while the Republicans are the free trade party. Of course, Roosevelt's administration would have seen gains. The market would have started from nothing and he had a war and open trade during the war to make the stock market go up. Still, Roosevelt's economy was still a mess up until the war because his programs never did work. Look up the numbers. If you really take the time to learn the truth, you will learn that when people are economically free, they will become wealthy. "When they trade their freedom for security, they will have neither freedom or security.

  • TROY U - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 5:43PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    I hate these sorts of comparisons. There have been what 43 presidents, perhaps 38 when you take in multiple term presidents. 30-40 is hardly significant enough to make any of those numbers believable. It is clearly meant to steer folks to vote Democrat. If the numbers supported the Republicans they too would use it. I think the analysis is completely bogus.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 4:57PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    I find it hard to believe that a president can during his term(s) significantly affect the economy. Stock prices reflect future expectations not the current conditions anyway. I tend to agree with the benefit of gridlock though. It lessens the chance that politicians mess with the economy.

  • jason_harrison - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 4:14PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Could it be all the illegal activities of the GOP depressing the economy ? Enron, Watergate, Keating 5 scandal, Troopergate ... Yeah, Republicans ruin the economy every time.

  • Chris Glendening - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 3:49PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    This is pretty much in line with what Chalmers Johnson and Noam Chomsky have been saying and it is pretty obvious to anyone not moon eyed over the media distortion that is paid for by the big crooks in the GOP.

  • DFW Couple - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 3:44PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    Interesting they did not meantion who was in control of Congress. I think you would notice, a majority of the down time it would be Democrats, not that it would really matter. Business has a cycle of ups and downs, unlike Government that never shrinks.

  • Fred Palermo - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 3:29PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Give a poor man money and he spends most of it meaning you will eventually get some of it. Give the same money to a rich man and most of it will go to his bank account and stay there. This is one of the many ways Republicans are bad for the economy. Their complete lack of moral fiber leading to lots of corruption doesn't help.

  • sam_hudson - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 3:13PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    This article is right on the money!

  • alan.simenson - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 3:04PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Democrats are good for the economy, that's pretty obvious. Republicans are crooks. Just read up on Lee Atwater's deathbed confessions. The poor man realized he didn't have much hope in the afterlife after years of GOP dirty tricks.

  • Punkrock - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 2:56PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    It isn't conservative laws or policies that always depress our economy under Republicans, it's the corruption. Halliburton, Enron, Keating Five scandal, Troopergate, Watergate ... It's pretty depressing.

  • Rob - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 2:51PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Republicans don't mess the economy up with conservative policies. The push and pull between the Republicans and Democrats is a good thing. The problem is that Republicans tend to be so crooked that the market is running scared with the rest of us.

  • A.H - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 2:49PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    while this is interesting - it shares not enough facts. is there more evidence & experts to back up this article?(where are the stats coming from?) the real question should be - what should we expect if a Republican or Democratic takes office? This article clearly favors the Democratic party & started by saying choosing a Democratic leader is the best choice, but at the end favors a Republican to even out the decision making. since the Democrats will dominate the floor in Congress. also, be good to know which companies benefit from each party in office. the democratic party seems to cater to the middle class/ upper class income homes & more the minority groups than the Republicans. as I see now - the Democratic party will help make some of the richer ppl even richer but I don't see how the lower class income homes will benefit as well. finally, thanks for being truthful at the end of the article - even though started bent (& didn't convince me at all) - it really made a full circle without giving a real good explanation on who & why they should be in office.

  • Brian Kidwell - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 2:48PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    So, the author says: "it might be good for the stock market to have a Republican president. Keeping a check on a free-spending Congress is in investors' interests." "elections are far from the only factor influencing stock returns. The 2000-2002 bear market that followed the technology bubble would have been equally disastrous even if Al Gore...had been selected president" AND "don't time the market to the elections. Studies have shown that buying stocks when prices are reasonable...will be a long-run winning strategy no matter who is elected president" and all the republicans call him an ignorant, socialist, tax and spend, unqualified, biased liberal??? The problem is that you people only read the first two sentences and saw a statistic favoring democrats and then instantly go into a partisan tirade. I think you are what's referred to as "low information" voters. Maybe you should gather all the information first....then make a decision. I know that seems foreign to you considering how the country has been run for the last 8 years but I think we have seen that the "shoot from the hip, good ole boy, jump in head first" approach hasn't worked out all that great. Thinkers unite!

  • george_adams - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 2:42PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    I agree with Mr. Osteen. Conservative policies would be great if they were actually practiced by my beloved GOP. But as Mr. Osteen points out, the corruption that always comes with the Republican party scares the daylights out of investors which takes about 2 hours to show up in the Dow. It really is sad that the most conservative voice now comes from the Democrats. I really do trust Obama much more than McCain ( Keating 5 scandal) and Palin ( Troopergate scandal) .

  • SmartyPants - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 2:40PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Interesting. I guess the neo-conservatives and the righters in this country brainwash everyone into thinking otherwise. They have really become the party of bullsh**! I am not falling for their nonsense but I know many that are. I think it is really about taxes. Under the right, the rich pay less taxes and therefore have more cashflow and can invest more and make a killing.

  • Phillip Q - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 2:40PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Reading some of the comments reaffirms my belief that no matter what the facts are, you will stick to what you believe to be true. Conservatives will always complain about a bias whenever someone quotes statistics that don't find what they "believe" to be true. The study is over a 120 year period, not the past 16, people. And reporters might be left-leaning, but almost all serious editors, the ones who approve what's okay to report, are conservative. They, after all, support the owners of their industry. Conservative editors have control of what content is in the story. Finally, the report concludes that it's most important to have some checks and balances in our government. That is what's most important. If the past 8 years are any lesson, having one party control the House, Senate, and the Executive branch is disastrous. Oh, and the guy that mentioned Clinton not fighting Al Queda...Has Bush brought us the head of Osama yet? Didn't he say he can't be concerned with him??? Maybe we're trying to draw Osama into Iraq...where the terror front really is?

  • Edward - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 2:31PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    If republicans would do what they say they would do,there would much more prosperity for all americans.They have the correct ideas where democrats are way of the mark in there ideas.But republicans end up spending pushing up inflation increasing the national debt etc.like democrats.But how can people in the middle class vote the democrats in? With democrats in things would be far worse.The energy crisis could be solved if we expended oil drilling and nuclear power we could also look at other viable solutions democrats have the same failed ideas as always.you pointed out that stocks have been better under democratic rule did you factor in inflation? who much worse would AMERICA be if we had followed all the spending they have tried to push. there are many factors to consider when you look at the big picture.America wake up!

  • Ted - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 2:29PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Let me be the first to introduce most of you to introductory statistics. Lesson One: Correlation doesn't infer causation. Take this quote by George Bernard Shaw: “Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive.” What a novel concept right?? The author, contrary to what most think, isn't giving conclusions or libral slants of any kind; for those of who disagree you probably got lazy and didn't finish the article. The author is just showing another interesting correlation that basically boils down to nothing ground breaking... just another trivial piece that yahoo could post up on their servers and have these ridiculously heated debates which increases their popularity and herego their bottom line. Also, for everyone holding extremist political views and posting hateful stuff on here whether it be towards a black, white, latino, or chinese man.... you're idiots. Everytime I read comments to article I lose a little more faith in America; I didn't know so many retards and hateful people had access to the web. Please, we live in a wonderful country, don't tearing it down by: being hateful or being naive and believing everything word for word in the media. I shed another tear for America today. Oh yea BTW, many of you would benefit from using spell check, not unless you a purposely trying to dumb down the English language.

  • Johnny Osteen - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 2:27PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    I am overall conservative in my political and economic views, but I have to agree with Dr. Siegel in his analysis of this startling trend. While I believe conservative policies are good for the market, the corruption that comes with the Republican party (since the 1920's) has always done more harm to the market than the benefit of the various conservative policies brought forth under Republican administrations. The House and Senate are even worse. The Keating Five scandal, which should have sent McCain to prison is typical of the shenanigans of the once great GOP. It really makes me sad.

  • i - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 2:25PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    I agree more factors must be considered, but its an interesting first cut. Each president holds office in a different environment. I cannot defend Bush's dismal record given eight years and a Republican congress. But, while a trend might exist it may be more about dumbluck.

  • nickname - Sunday, September 7, 2008, 2:18PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    A couple of comments: It'd be interesting to see how the value of the dollar changes during the same periods of time.. because if the value of the dollar severely drops, then it doesn't make up for the rise of the stock price. Remember there is about a 4 to 10 year delay between when the president makes a decision and when the change takes place in the economy. So some of the current effect can be attributed to the last president. Interesting article, I just don't think it was as well thought out as it could have been.

Showing comments 6-35 of 325<< PreviousNext >>
The columns, articles, message board posts and any other features provided on Yahoo! Finance are provided for personal finance and investment information and are not to be construed as investment advice. Under no circumstances does the information in this content represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in an article or column are the author's own and not necessarily those of Yahoo! and there is no implied endorsement by Yahoo! of any advice or trading strategy.

More From Jeremy Siegel

What's happening in the economy? And how will that impact your portfolio?

Find out what Wharton Professor Jeremy Siegel says.

Have his timely newsletter sent by email each week and be the first to learn what's moving the markets and why.

Subscribe now at www.JeremySiegel.com

More from Yahoo! Sources

  • CNN Money
  • Consumer Reports
  • Kiplinger
  • The Motley Fool
  • Business Week
  • Wall Street Journal

Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Morningstar, Inc. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service. You may turn streaming quotes on or off. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.

Yahoo! Answers is provided for informational purposes only, and no Q&A is intended for trading or investing purposes. Yahoo! shall not be responsible or liable for the accuracy, usefulness or availability of any Q&A information, and shall not be responsible or liable for any trading or investment decisions based on such information. View Complete Answers Disclaimer.