September 24, 2018, 05:44:41 AM


Author Topic: Stocks did better in Obamaís first year than in Trumpís  (Read 1472 times)

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stocks did better in Obamaís first year than in Trumpís
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2018, 10:44:02 AM »
Some people would imply political propaganda behind the rise of the stock markets.
Go back into the recent history of American politics and business as far as 1929.
When the stock market crashed, the USA was under the presidency of Herbert
Hoover who was a Republican, and after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected, the
markets improved and the economy also improved. I don't know how the stock
market was during the last days of Eisenhower and the first days of JFK. But what I
know is that this same trend reoccurred again in the late 1990's under the Bill Clinton
administration when the markets were doing really well until G.W. Bush came into
office in 2001. By 2009 the US economy was in a bad shape and Obama assumed office
and the economy improved.
That the markets have historically done better under Democratic presidents isn't propaganda. It's fact.

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5268
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stocks did better in Obamaís first year than in Trumpís
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2018, 11:39:06 AM »
is it just a correction? Is the carnage over? How much did you lose? Did it feel good?

If you invested in the Dow as an index in Nov. 2017, you'd still be ahead. I don't do futures much outside of a mutual fund, but I'm happy the market corrected itself because it was booming too much. Regardless, my mutual fund is there for long-term appreciation in value, not short-term quarterly gains.

Quote
You don't understand that when you "get back" what you "lost" you're still behind because you're spending time and savings getting whole instead of getting ahead.

That makes zero sense. Your stock portfolio is based on individual stocks and how those perform, not the Dow as a whole or it's part of some sort of portfolio in which you are primarily concerned over long-term growth. These stocks fluctuate in value constantly. You're no more "behind" in this case than if your long-term stocks dipped 2% one month while under Obama.

The stock market and individual stocks do not work like a linear line. They don't always go up.

Quote
So most everyone would be better off if the repugs and the banks hadn't blown up the economy, no matter what level the Dow is at now.

Dude, you can't go "The stock market is not the economy" when the economy is doing well, and then say "the economy has blown up" when the market undergoes a correction.

Quote
The market was "due"--according to who? This is just trumpy CYA.

Pretty much every analyst out there.

Quote
For most people, losing money is a bad thing. Volatility in the market is a bad thing;

You're right it is. That's why this correction was a good thing. Minor volatility now instead of major volatility later.

Quote
Was the loss of $3trillion a good thing? If so, how?
If the loss of $3 trillion, as a correction to an overheated stock market (which if you're going to credit Obama with when it was roaring, you also have to assign the "overheated" part to him as well), IS a good thing if it prevents the loss of $15 trillion later and allows the market to continue to gain, even if it's at a slower rate.

To give a parallel example, let's take Bitcoin. Bitcoins value, as something that has fluctuating value, is not something that will always go up in a straight line (just like the dollar or yen or Euro). Having it skyrocket in value is not good because at some point people will all try to sell, resulting in a crash of it's value. However, if you can have some periods where there's sell-offs and it declines in value by say 10% (about what the Dow plunged) vs. plunging in value by 50 or 70%, that's a good thing.

So yes, "losing" money can be a good thing, you even gave the reason why- to prevent severe volatility.

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stocks did better in Obamaís first year than in Trumpís
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2018, 02:22:03 PM »
is it just a correction? Is the carnage over? How much did you lose? Did it feel good?

If you invested in the Dow as an index in Nov. 2017, you'd still be ahead. I don't do futures much outside of a mutual fund, but I'm happy the market corrected itself because it was booming too much. Regardless, my mutual fund is there for long-term appreciation in value, not short-term quarterly gains.

Quote
You don't understand that when you "get back" what you "lost" you're still behind because you're spending time and savings getting whole instead of getting ahead.

That makes zero sense. Your stock portfolio is based on individual stocks and how those perform, not the Dow as a whole or it's part of some sort of portfolio in which you are primarily concerned over long-term growth. These stocks fluctuate in value constantly. You're no more "behind" in this case than if your long-term stocks dipped 2% one month while under Obama.

The stock market and individual stocks do not work like a linear line. They don't always go up.

Quote
So most everyone would be better off if the repugs and the banks hadn't blown up the economy, no matter what level the Dow is at now.

Dude, you can't go "The stock market is not the economy" when the economy is doing well, and then say "the economy has blown up" when the market undergoes a correction.

Quote
The market was "due"--according to who? This is just trumpy CYA.

Pretty much every analyst out there.

Quote
For most people, losing money is a bad thing. Volatility in the market is a bad thing;

You're right it is. That's why this correction was a good thing. Minor volatility now instead of major volatility later.

Quote
Was the loss of $3trillion a good thing? If so, how?
If the loss of $3 trillion, as a correction to an overheated stock market (which if you're going to credit Obama with when it was roaring, you also have to assign the "overheated" part to him as well), IS a good thing if it prevents the loss of $15 trillion later and allows the market to continue to gain, even if it's at a slower rate.

To give a parallel example, let's take Bitcoin. Bitcoins value, as something that has fluctuating value, is not something that will always go up in a straight line (just like the dollar or yen or Euro). Having it skyrocket in value is not good because at some point people will all try to sell, resulting in a crash of it's value. However, if you can have some periods where there's sell-offs and it declines in value by say 10% (about what the Dow plunged) vs. plunging in value by 50 or 70%, that's a good thing.

So yes, "losing" money can be a good thing, you even gave the reason why- to prevent severe volatility.
You obviously don't understand much about money. Losing money is not a good thing. And the recent sell-off was not "minor."

How many years did it take the average investor to get back to where they were before the great recession? That is time and money lost.

You are looking at things wrongly, along with the very limited perspective of someone in the accumulation phase. But retirees living off their investments need that money now and can't wait. Others are maybe recently unemployed or facing emergencies of one kind or another. They have lost money, millions and millions.

Factor in $31 billion in stock outflows in one week. Volatility like that is not good.

Who says the market is overheated? Do you even know why people are worried about the economy? Why isn't a mass sell-off a concern?

And blame Obama? When it's trump tax cuts and the resulting deficits that have people worried about the economy?

Quote
If you invested in the Dow as an index in Nov. 2017, you'd still be ahead. I don't do futures much outside of a mutual fund, but I'm happy the market corrected itself because it was booming too much. Regardless, my mutual fund is there for long-term appreciation in value, not short-term quarterly gains.

And yet you cherry-pick short-term results. Just another example of your inability to be honest.


Offline MayorHaggar

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3395
Re: Stocks did better in Obamaís first year than in Trumpís
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2018, 02:29:22 PM »

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5268
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stocks did better in Obamaís first year than in Trumpís
« Reply #24 on: February 13, 2018, 02:55:50 PM »
You obviously don't understand much about money. Losing money is not a good thing. And the recent sell-off was not "minor."

Look at it this way- Say you own a seasonal business. From December-March you average losses of $2,000/month. From April-November, you average profits of $10,000/month. Is it "not a good thing" that your business loses money? Well in the most rudimentary sense, I suppose not, but what you're forgetting is that those losses are built into the model and what you expect. You don't expect to make a profit every single minute of every single day and have it continuously go up. There will be "boom" and "bust" cycles. An overheated stock market would be akin to a business experiencing a "rush" of customers when it starts up for the season and then "correcting" to normal levels.

I'm not an expert on business or economics but I know enough to recognize that the idea of "Never ever lose money, it's always a bad thing" is shared by virtually no one in business/investing. All of them understand you will have cycles of loss and some even factor losses into their business model and predictions. Like for example a company restructuring that results in losses for several quarters with the hope that it will ensure long-term profitability for the company. It is better to endure those temporary losses than to ignore structural defects.

For example, the famous "Dot.com" bubble while it did result in lots of losses, in the long-term led to a much more stable tech investment environment and companies such as eBay or Amazon ultimately recovered and thrived.

Quote
How many years did it take the average investor to get back to where they were before the great recession? That is time and money lost.

It took 5 years. After which the Dow reached almost double what it was previously over the next 5 years.

And yes, markets are unpredictable. They are, for lack of a better term, educated gambling. The market does not operate on a linear line and provide stable steady returns. It fluctuates on a daily basis and caries risk.

Quote
But retirees living off their investments need that money now and can't wait. Others are maybe recently unemployed or facing emergencies of one kind or another. They have lost money, millions and millions.

Only if they invested within the past 3 months. If they invested before that, they are still ahead. And of course this all depends on what they invested in. Not all stocks went up or down exactly in the same percentage.

Quote
Who says the market is overheated? Do you even know why people are worried about the economy? Why isn't a mass sell-off a concern?
Like, EVERYONE was saying it. Dude seriously, don't come on here lecturing me about money and then say crap like "Who says the market is overheated?"

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/bull-market-is-showing-signs-of-overheating-says-jim-paulsen.html
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/investing/stocks-tumble-wall-street-dow/index.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2018/02/05/heres-what-the-market-is-really-worried-about/#5f46ec29693c
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/03/financial-markets-overheating-financial-crisis-bis
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2018/01/16/401-k-investors-dow-26-000-sign-stocks-getting-risky/1035610001/

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/theres-good-news-and-bad-news-for-investors-after-the-stock-market-correction-2018-02-12

Quote
And blame Obama? When it's trump tax cuts and the resulting deficits that have people worried about the economy?
I DON'T BLAME OBAMA. I'm pointing out that if you credit Obama for the boom, you have to credit him for the correction. As I've mentioned, I think Obama deserves as much credit as a President can get for the market (which is debatable- you could have had a chimp in office and tech stocks would have roared during the 90s) and that contrary to lefty predictions of doom and gloom, the market didn't and hasn't crashed under Trump. In fact, many investors are saying now is a good time to buy.

Incidentally, we saw several similar market corrections under Obama. These were good.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/stock-market-correction.html

Lastly, as all the articles have said, there are a bunch of reasons for this market correction, most of which has little to do with Trump. We're talking things ranging from Euro concerns to Chinese markets. "It's because of Trump" is about the simplest, most moronic thing a person can say.

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stocks did better in Obamaís first year than in Trumpís
« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2018, 06:44:22 PM »
You obviously don't understand much about money. Losing money is not a good thing. And the recent sell-off was not "minor."

Look at it this way- Say you own a seasonal business. From December-March you average losses of $2,000/month. From April-November, you average profits of $10,000/month. Is it "not a good thing" that your business loses money? Well in the most rudimentary sense, I suppose not, but what you're forgetting is that those losses are built into the model and what you expect. You don't expect to make a profit every single minute of every single day and have it continuously go up. There will be "boom" and "bust" cycles. An overheated stock market would be akin to a business experiencing a "rush" of customers when it starts up for the season and then "correcting" to normal levels.

I'm not an expert on business or economics but I know enough to recognize that the idea of "Never ever lose money, it's always a bad thing" is shared by virtually no one in business/investing. All of them understand you will have cycles of loss and some even factor losses into their business model and predictions. Like for example a company restructuring that results in losses for several quarters with the hope that it will ensure long-term profitability for the company. It is better to endure those temporary losses than to ignore structural defects.

For example, the famous "Dot.com" bubble while it did result in lots of losses, in the long-term led to a much more stable tech investment environment and companies such as eBay or Amazon ultimately recovered and thrived.

Quote
How many years did it take the average investor to get back to where they were before the great recession? That is time and money lost.

It took 5 years. After which the Dow reached almost double what it was previously over the next 5 years.

And yes, markets are unpredictable. They are, for lack of a better term, educated gambling. The market does not operate on a linear line and provide stable steady returns. It fluctuates on a daily basis and caries risk.

Quote
But retirees living off their investments need that money now and can't wait. Others are maybe recently unemployed or facing emergencies of one kind or another. They have lost money, millions and millions.

Only if they invested within the past 3 months. If they invested before that, they are still ahead. And of course this all depends on what they invested in. Not all stocks went up or down exactly in the same percentage.

Quote
Who says the market is overheated? Do you even know why people are worried about the economy? Why isn't a mass sell-off a concern?
Like, EVERYONE was saying it. Dude seriously, don't come on here lecturing me about money and then say crap like "Who says the market is overheated?"

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/bull-market-is-showing-signs-of-overheating-says-jim-paulsen.html
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/investing/stocks-tumble-wall-street-dow/index.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2018/02/05/heres-what-the-market-is-really-worried-about/#5f46ec29693c
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/03/financial-markets-overheating-financial-crisis-bis
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2018/01/16/401-k-investors-dow-26-000-sign-stocks-getting-risky/1035610001/

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/theres-good-news-and-bad-news-for-investors-after-the-stock-market-correction-2018-02-12

Quote
And blame Obama? When it's trump tax cuts and the resulting deficits that have people worried about the economy?
I DON'T BLAME OBAMA. I'm pointing out that if you credit Obama for the boom, you have to credit him for the correction. As I've mentioned, I think Obama deserves as much credit as a President can get for the market (which is debatable- you could have had a chimp in office and tech stocks would have roared during the 90s) and that contrary to lefty predictions of doom and gloom, the market didn't and hasn't crashed under Trump. In fact, many investors are saying now is a good time to buy.

Incidentally, we saw several similar market corrections under Obama. These were good.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/stock-market-correction.html

Lastly, as all the articles have said, there are a bunch of reasons for this market correction, most of which has little to do with Trump. We're talking things ranging from Euro concerns to Chinese markets. "It's because of Trump" is about the simplest, most moronic thing a person can say.
You are simply out of your depth.

That you reference financial porn/clickbait demonstrates that, as a well as your habit of hiding behind a wall of links which you have in the past misunderstood. That you make terrible analogies between business and personal investments is more proof. That you keep making assumptions about investors' gains or losses with no basis in fact would be strike three if not that your real purpose, to defend trump no matter what, is strike three.






Offline Foreverparadise

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1484
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stocks did better in Obamaís first year than in Trumpís
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2018, 01:37:27 AM »
Some people would imply political propaganda behind the rise of the stock markets.
Go back into the recent history of American politics and business as far as 1929.
When the stock market crashed, the USA was under the presidency of Herbert
Hoover who was a Republican, and after Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected, the
markets improved and the economy also improved. I don't know how the stock
market was during the last days of Eisenhower and the first days of JFK. But what I
know is that this same trend reoccurred again in the late 1990's under the Bill Clinton
administration when the markets were doing really well until G.W. Bush came into
office in 2001. By 2009 the US economy was in a bad shape and Obama assumed office
and the economy improved.
That the markets have historically done better under Democratic presidents isn't propaganda. It's fact.

Don't forget 1987 when the markets were not doing too well. Regan was president at that time.
George H.W. Bush was president for 1 term going into the early 1990's. At that time there was a
recession in the USA wasn't there?

Offline hangook77

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stocks did better in Obamaís first year than in Trumpís
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2018, 04:06:21 PM »
Jobs doing better now.  Dow Jones was 17,000 in summer of 2016.  After Trump's win, it soared.  Now, it's over 25,000. 
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/djia?mod=MW_story_quote


Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stocks did better in Obamaís first year than in Trumpís
« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2018, 04:13:14 PM »
Jobs doing better now.  Dow Jones was 17,000 in summer of 2016.  After Trump's win, it soared.  Now, it's over 25,000. 
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/djia?mod=MW_story_quote
Really?
Quote
A broader measure of unemployment that includes discouraged workers and those holding part-time jobs for economic reasons edged higher to 8.2 percent, the highest level since September.