posted May 17, 2012 02:29 PM            

By Bob Drummond - Feb 21, 2012 9:00 PM PT .

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

“The market does tend to do better under Democrats than under Republicans,” Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research in New York, said in a telephone interview. “Is it because Republicans mishandled the economy, or inherited a weak economy? I’ll leave that to others.”

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.

Wall Street Republicans
Democratic administrations also may be more likely to spend money on government programs that stimulate the economy, Stovall said.

“I dare say that most people on Wall Street are Republicans,” Stovall said. “But it appears the bread is buttered on the Democratic side.”

The S&P 500 yesterday hit its highest intra-day level since June 2008 and closed at 1,362.21, the highest since last April 29. The benchmark index is up 8.3 percent so far in 2012, the biggest year-to-date gain at this point since 1991.

Since Kennedy took office, the Democratic S&P fund logged a 992 percent gain, versus 109 percent growth for the opposition party, even though Democrats occupied the White House for 23 years over the period, compared with 28 years of Republican presidential leadership.

The annualized return for 23 years of Democratic administrations is 11 percent, or four times the 2.7 percent annualized return during 28 years of Republican presidencies.

Democratic Edge

Investing $1,000 in funds that mirror the Dow Jones Industrial Average under the same conditions, Democratic investors would have had $7,550, versus $2,716 under Republicans.

The Democratic edge is so large that the party comes out ahead even without counting Bill Clinton (the Democrat with the biggest S&P 500 gain) and George W. Bush (the Republican with the worst market record). A hypothetical $1,000 investment under Democrats excluding Clinton was worth $3,539 versus $3,296 invested under Republicans except Bush.

Adding Dwight Eisenhower to the Republican column doesn’t overcome the Democratic advantage, either: $1,000 invested in the S&P 500 in January 1953 would have been worth $4,796 after 36 years under Republican chief executives -- still less than half the $10,920 nest egg accumulated in 23 years under Democrats.

posted May 17, 2012 02:44 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 17, 2012 02:53 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 17, 2012 04:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Ami, that's because there is no disconnect. Smart people vote Democrat. Perhaps you need to challenge your own thinking about politics.

---

AG I respect a lot about you. I really don't understand your thinking on this but we will have to agree to disagree. Now, on to Kat

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 17, 2012 04:34 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 17, 2012 05:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I don't think so. I don't know on what basis that claim would be made. I don't think Obama is the first Democrat Buffett has backed, and I don't think Buffett has been targetted by anyone, because he's not really conflicting with anyone's interests.

Also, a word to the wise, don't copy other people's stupidity. If a person's being stupid, leave them to do it on their own. Don't join in. I don't even know if you know the poor thinking that went into Jwhop creating (or copying) the "O'Bomber" spelling, but it can only make you look worse than Jwhop by copying it.

---

AG I am happy to copy that fine man, Jwhop. In fact, you can thank him for my getting back into politics and coming here to have social intercourse with you all

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 17, 2012 07:05 PM            

I have a feeling that you think Jwhop's a "fine man" merely because he seems to sound the most like the guy on the radio. There's no evidence that you question that opinion you hear on the radio, and so you don't question it here either. If you believe those guys on the radio are in command of all the information, then I guess you believe Jwhop's in command of all the data, too. He's not. Nor are those people on the radio.

posted May 17, 2012 07:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Social intercourse...how suggestive.

I have a feeling that you think Jwhop's a "fine man" merely because he seems to sound the most like the guy on the radio. There's no evidence that you question that opinion you hear on the radio, and so you don't question it here either. If you believe those guys on the radio are in command of all the information, then I guess you believe Jwhop's in command of all the data, too. He's not. Nor are those people on the radio.

Believe me, if any of the people you listen to could create an actual compelling argument for which there was no good counter argument you wouldn't see as much dispute here as you do. Conservative commentators are rarely in command of all the facts, but even worse than that the good/smart ones know the facts and are making arguments to mislead you anyways. Conservatives do not want you to be informed. They want you to get their message and pass it along. That's why Conservatives have such a difficult time arguing, because the only weapon they typically have is conviction. Conviction and a dollar will buy you a candy bar. No amount of convication or acting like an authority will overcome a basic dearth of information and understanding.

---

Social intercourse

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 18, 2012 12:24 AM            

edit:

AG said:

quote:

---

because the only weapon they typically have is conviction

---

conviction is a good word to use. Really nails it.

posted May 18, 2012 08:49 AM            

Listen up acoustic. Wall Street gave more money to O'Bomber's campaign than any other candidate in history. O'Bomber and demoscats have paid off for Wall Street like slot machines...though with a hell of a lot better odds.

Guess what happens when government throws money at banks, other financial institutions, energy and housing acoustic. Since you don't have the analytical ability to answer that question acousistic; I'll answer it for you.

The stock market goes up.

Now acoustic, you can quote Socialist demoscats like Bloomberg till hell freezes over but rational people understand those at Bloomberg...including Bloomberg himself are clueless as to why the stock market goes up..or down.

If you had any analytical ability at all acoustic, you'd know the stock market is down...way the hell down from it's all time high of 14,087.55 on 10-1-2007. To make matters even worse for investors acoustic, the erosion of the value of the US Dollar under your little Marxist Messiah has fallen so far that the Dow Jones Industrial Average would need to go to at least 15,500 just to get investors even with where they were in October, 2007. The market closed yesterday at 12,442. That's the real record under demoscat Barack Hussein O'Bomber that you're crowing about.

O'Bomber got his name the old fashioned way; he earned it...by promising to attack our friend and talk to our enemies. In fact, O'Bomber has come close to destroying US credibility in the world. Though the foreign policy I proposed was farcical, it would have been superior to the absolute disaster O'Bomber has made manifest.

Not only is O'Bomber an economic dunce and domestic policy dunce; he's a foreign policy dunce as well.

November 6, 2012 can't come too soon to see this inept, incompetent, corrupt, Marxist boob packing to leave the White House.

posted May 18, 2012 11:50 AM            

This is yet another inconvenient article that you don't want to deal with. I get it. You didn't, however, refute it. Since you didn't and can't refute it virtually none of what you've said makes a lick of difference.

Yes, there are people on Wall Street that back Democrats. After establishing the fact that Wall Street is the most Socialist entity in our nation yesterday, it would seem like that makes sense to you.

Jwhop, you know you can't bash my analytic abilities. You have some of the worst analytic abilities on this site. You're not in a position to make analysis on anything.

Stock market under Obama has gone up 20.1% annually. The stock market under Bush went down 3.5% annually. Analyze that. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-37744468/stocks---bush-vs-obama/
That Republican writer also found the better results under Democrats.

Sorry bud, my assertion stands. If you love money, stick with Democrats. That doesn't mean the Democrat in office is the cause. The correlation stands tough over time, however.

quote:

---

Average would need to go to at least 15,500 just to get investors even with where they were in October, 2007.

---

That's false. I mean, that's just a stupid thing to say outright. If you didn't get your money out of failing stocks in an appropriate time frame, then you bore the loss. If you were prudent, on the other hand, you could weather the decline in the market just fine. Not everyone subscribes to sticking with indexes.

posted May 18, 2012 12:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Your justification for the "O'Bomber" spelling remains as stupid as it ever was. That's just as plain now as it was then.

---

posted May 18, 2012 01:36 PM            

Further, that was his nickname in high school, O'Bomber!

posted May 18, 2012 02:13 PM            

anyway she wanted rush to tell her how to respond to people who told her she shouldn't listen to him, his show was bunk. and he asked "do THEY listen to the show? have they ever?" "no", says lil miz dixie, so rush tells her next time they bug her she should tell them they are bigots because they are trying to change her mind on something they know nothing about. assuming the scenario is real, so far i agree with him...but

this is exactly what people here do. they listen to those who back up their belief that obama is a commie, like rush, but not to the other side, in fact should the other side open its mouth they either put the boot in or hold up their cross for protection.

on the same program, rush complains ad nauseam about the press printing stories that favour trayvon martin in the zimmerman case...one piece of evidence HE is touting is that it has been revealed that martin had THC in his system...

now if you believe rush is god or even honest you will just swallow the implication that trayvon was not so innocent. but if you know anything about THC you know it stays in the blood stream for WEEKS, meaning he may not have had any for weeks, and that weed smokers are among the LEAST violent, least likely to fight, people anywhere. so what he is really doing is exactly what he is complaining about, and interfering in the case to boot.

i listen to rush and hear a) he makes mountains out of molehills and b) he twists things to make it seem like he stands for fairness all the while pushing HIS interpretation of facts and events...

so again you are listening to the OPINION of someone who gets PAID to push the conservative fear machine.

posted May 18, 2012 03:52 PM            

just wondering, ami, do you know jwhop? how do you know whether he is a fine man or not? and even if he be the finest in the land,

when you are happy to copy someone you are not using YOUR brain. this is step number one in the book i wrote recently titled:

posted May 18, 2012 05:03 PM            

That's great that Obama's teammates called him O'Bomber. You're not his teammate, however, and there continues to be no rationale that can pull you back from having jumped off that edge.

quote:

---

The stock market under O'Bomber has not gone up even to the high in October 2007.

---