Market returns under Republicans and Democrats

[rascal]

Interesting, from the monthly investment newsletter my investment company sends out:

It’s difficult to look ahead with precision. If it was easy, we’d all be millionaires, right? But a look back at nearly a century of history reveals some very surprising trends about politics and the stock market.
Given the pro-business tilt of Republicans, you might think that markets perform best when the GOP holds political power. Wrong. You also might think that markets do better with Republican presidents. Also surprisingly wrong.
In July, McLean Asset Management compared the performance of the Standard & Poor’s 500 index from 1926 to 2019 with who was running Washington. The average annual return under Republican presidents was 9.12%. But it was 14.9% under Democratic presidents — a huge difference.
McLean then compared market returns with control of both the presidency and Congress. In the 47 years (34 Democrat, 13 Republican) that one party controlled both branches, the S&P 500 returned 14.5% annually.
With a Republican president and a Democratic Congress (33 years), returns slumped to an average of 7%. But returns were highest with a Democratic president and a Republican Congress: 16% annually during 14 years.
These are surprising differences. And a comparison of more recent presidencies continues to give the edge to Democrats.
Through 43 months with Trump as president, the S&P 500 is up 54%, having recovered fully from the virus-induced recession. But the same index was up 70% for Barack Obama’s first 43 months.
If Trump gets re-elected, he has a ways to go to match Obama’s and Bill Clinton’s records with the S&P 500. During Obama’s eight years, the index was up 176%, and during Clinton’s two terms, it was up a whopping 211%.
The best two-term Republicans, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, each saw the index appreciate by about 130%.
Although these results are surprising, the statistics don’t really mean that one party is better or worse for the economy. But they do illustrate two important things that people should remember as the presidential campaign evolves from mean to meaner.
First is that, no matter how crazy American politics seems at times, the economy handles it and usually produces steady growth.
Under 15 presidents going back to 1929, only three — George W. Bush, Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover — were in office during periods when the S&P 500 declined. It rose for the other 12.
Second, while the people running Washington do have some influence over the economy and markets, they are not the ultimate deciders. Wars, recessions, terrorist attacks and viruses play a role. But mostly, the markets go up — and that should provide a little peace of mind for both Democratic and Republican voters.

[billryan]

While interesting, those numbers are fairly well known. Notes was supposedly some mid level employee of a financial advisory company so I imagine he knows this, although you'd never guess it from his posts.
Another statistic I find useful is how the gap between the top 3% and the rest grows under almost every Republican administration and shrinks under most Democratic ones.
But none of that really matters. What really matters is electing Donald Trump so he can put an end to the carnage taking place under Donald Trump.

[wildman49]

The parabolic move in many NASDAQ stocks reminds me of the 6 D. Trump bankruptcy's. He praised up them businesses at the start and all the bankers, bond holders and share holders ended up with nothing. Could the USA be the next victim?