Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Lowe's Companies Inc. Message Board

  • least_effort least_effort Feb 14, 2007 6:49 PM Flag

    Stock did better under Democrats

     

    ,:Stocks Have Actually Done Better Under Democrats

    Despite the behavior of the market during the last Presidential election, over longer periods of time, the stock market has done significantly better under Democratic administrations.

    The accompanying chart shows stock returns under each occupant of the White House since the beginning of Harry Truman's 2nd term. Calculated the return from the end of the Nov election, since stocks will react to the policies of the incoming administration when it is elected, not when it takes office.

    President Party Date Months in Office Annualized Stock Return
    Truman D 11/48-10/52 48 18.28%
    Eisenhower R 11/52-10/60 96 14.96%
    Kennedy D 11/60-10/63 36 1 5.15%
    Johnson D 11/63-10/68 60 10.39%
    Nixon R 11/68-7/74 69 -1.32%
    Ford R 8/74-10/76 27 17.21%
    Carter D 11/76-10/80 48 11.04%
    Reagan R 11/80-10/88 96 15.18%
    Bush R 11/88-10/92 48 14.44%
    Clinton D 11/92-10/00 96 39%
    Bush, G.W. R 11/00-2/06 63 -0.92%

    Average from 1948 to Feb. 2006

    Democrat 42.8% 19.26%

    Republican 57.2% 9.53%

    Overall 100% 11.95%

    The table tells the story. Since 1948, Republican Administrations have controlled the White House 57.2 percent of the time. But during the period that the GOP was in office, stock returns have averaged only 9.53% per year, while under Democratic administrations, stocks returned 19.26% per year, more than 9% points higher.

    Stocks did best over the 8 years of the Clinton administration, with stock returns at 39% per year. Stock returns were above average during the Truman, Ford, Reagan, Kennedy, Eisenhower & Bush Senior administrations. And stock returns were only slightly below average during the Carter and Johnson Administrations.

    By far the worst stock returns came under the Republican administrations of Nixon and George W. Bush. Of course, even George W and Nixon cannot compare to the Great Depression era stock returns during the Republican administration of Herbert Hoover.

    During the 69 months from the election of President Nixon in Nov 1968 through his resignation in July of 1974, stock returns averaged minus 1.32% per year while inflation exceeded 6%. Similarly, during the 63 months since the election of George Bush in Nov 2000, stock returns have been negative.

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You need to consider the largest gain of all under Clinton, ended up being a fake, over bloated bubble with "overexuberant" head in the sand, PEs in the 100's, big giant bubble. That the Republicans succesfully steered the economy through and corrected.

      The biggest liberals of them all, still wanted to have a repeat performance, so they went and created the largest housing bubble ever seen in California.

      In the mean time they continually post drivel and statistics in order to rewrite history.

      "67% of all statistics are made up on the spot"
      "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"
      "If sense were truly common, more people would have some"

    • Perhaps the way to look at this return should be conservative verses liberal. Both Truman and Kennedy were conservative Democrats. As far as Clinton is concerned that whole dot.com fiasco makes the numbers look good but Bush the economy has repaired itself during the Bush administration. Let's not even go into Carter, he was probably the worst president in the last 100 years.

    • Those clinton years when Republicans took over Congress 2 years into his first term.Notice that that is when the market started to climb.his first 2 years the economy was fairly stagnant.FACT!When Newt took over and insisted on a balanced budget and presented the "Contract with America"the market(mostly internet stocks)took off.

    • So they're the ones that are the "under the blanket" caterers to big business!!!!!

    • Some of this information is somewhat flawed because it's CONGRESS that makes the budget not the president. Read the Constitution...please.

      Your dates are off in terms of the presidency...presidents get sworn in January...not november.

      From the late 40's to the early 90's the democrats were dominating in congress....

      So from the early 90's on it's been a republican majority (until recently)....

      Also you aren't stating as to what stock market...there's the dow, the nasdaq, russel 2000 etc.

      The 90's was obviously artifically inflated with the dot com stocks...since I'm assuming your using the dow jones then you should also notice the nasdaq...
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1209714.stm

      It dropped nearly 60% and still hasn't reached that high...but no one blamed clinton for it dispite the fact that the interest rates weren't being raised fast enough in 1999 and 2000
      http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/fundsrate.htm

      this also the time that proctor and gamble dropped about 50%...and again no one blamed who was in office.

      Lastly is that when you think about it the indexes don't show as to what companies left and came in...You could have something come in under hype and inflate it and go under..

    • This brings up another interesting stat. I remember hearing a while ago that 90% of stock market gains come on days when congress is not in session. If this is true, then it really doesn't matter who's in office as long as congress isn't in session.

      Throw out your outliers and I'd be willing to bet it's much more even between R&D presidencies.

 
LOW
70.77+0.34(+0.48%)May 6 4:03 PMEDT