Trump v. Clinton Forecast

“Stovall looked at the data for every presidential election going back to 1944 (FDR v. Dewey). If stocks rose in price from July 31 to October 31, the party that currently controlled the White House won the election 82% of the time.”
See Trump v. Clinton: The stock market can predict the winner – Jul. 31, 2016
We’re good then. I predict Trump will lose and my stock portfolio will grow dramatically from now until the election. I like it. Thank you for being an ass, Trump. It’s an easy call.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Trump v. Clinton Forecast

  1. Ivan wrote, “the only thing keeping the stock market where it is at are the super low interest rates”

    Not in my portfolio. When companies want more money they sell more shares and the money appears. To some extent that could be borrowed money but gains have been many times interest rates of recent memory. BTW, we just renewed a mortgage for 2+% p.a. In my life, I’ve paid as much as 18% (mortgage, not credit card). All of my equity investments come from my pensions, not borrowing. Perhaps I’m more insulated from the economy, being retired, but I don’t see a lot of borrowing to throw at the stock market. One form of borrowing for investment that we can measure is “short interest”. I’ve rarely seen large short interests in the markets, usually a few days’ trading volume at most. Another bigger factor is the low cost of borrowing making expansion of business easier but debt appears in periodic reports and most investors avoid debt-ridden companies because they are supposed to make money, not borrow it. My investments have all been involving companies that make a lot of money or have great potential of doing so.

  2. kurkosdr says:

    Look, you entitled man-child, the only thing keeping the stock market where it is at are the super low interest rates.

    True dat. Once central bank interest rises and companies that are chest-deep in debt can’t refinance/rollover their debt, expect to see some major downturn in stocks.

    In fact, the whole QE business was “money printing for businesses which are chest-deep in debt”.

    Of course, a smart investor would pull out when the central banks raise the interest rates, instead of betting on the “greater fool” theory and expect to time the downfall. But for now, central banks keep the interests low, so there is no reason to pull out…

  3. Ivan says:

    Look, you entitled man-child, the only thing keeping the stock market where it is at are the super low interest rates.

  4. dougman wrote, “LMAO…stock markets can predict elections now?”

    Well, it was a little tongue-in-cheeky…

    OTOH, stock markets are driven by traders like me and actual market-conditions. The overall performance of stocks is a measure of performance of real companies and the attitudes of real people to them, a kind of 3D poll. I’m pretty sure that rational humans, if they thought Trump would win would be very bearish about the stock-market. If they thought things were going alright and that new opportunities would arise, they would be bullish. It’s pretty clear Trump has no concern for peoples’ 401K plans, the equivalent of Canadian RSPs and RIFs etc. I’m certain the stock-markets would plunge in USA if Trump were to win and capital would take flight between November 2016 and January 2017. TFA is merely reflecting that some capital might take flight earlier depending on how things go, shots in feet, feet in mouths and such. I’m very sure Trump will make dozens of bone-headed moves between now and the election. QED

    It’s ironic that Trump always points out that Obama tipping his hand is very stupid. Well, Trump lays his cards on the table and makes no attempt to hide them. People can react accordingly. Stock markets are people too.

  5. dougman says:

    LMAO…stock markets can predict elections now?

    Ummm… I must have stepped into the outer limits, or perhaps the twilight zone. To begin, correlation does not imply causation, anyone knows this. Anyone who has taken an intro to psych or a statistics class has heard the old adage. However, just because two trends seem to fluctuate in tandem, this rule posits, that doesn’t prove that they are meaningfully related to one another.

    For example, it could be theoretically stated that pool drownings correlates to the number of Nicolas Cage movies.

    Any you call yourself a scientist?


Leave a Reply