Posted on Mar 31, 2016
Which party (if any) do you think will be better for the stock market?
6.95K
69
17
6
6
0
https://www.oppenheimerfunds.com/investors/article/what-investors-need-to-know-about-the-2016-election/democrat-or-republican-makes-no-difference-to-stocks
According to the article, there is little difference. I don't know that I believe it, but I started planning for retirement later than I should have so I am behind in the game anyway.
According to the article, there is little difference. I don't know that I believe it, but I started planning for retirement later than I should have so I am behind in the game anyway.
Financial Services
Politics
Election 2016
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 9
Do not worry about who is in office. Instead focus on the things that you control. Save as much as you can with regular contributions to Roth IRA's, 401K's, etc. Keep track of where your money is going, and adjust accordingly. Ensure that your asset allocation matches your risk tolerance.
(4)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
Sgt (Join to see) I wish when my RDCs in Boot Camp had said "When your time is up either in two years or twenty years, don't leave the Navy dumb; and don't leave the Navy Broke." He was of course referring to taking advantage of the education and saving opportunities that exist within the military environment. Sadly I did not listen.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
The issue with "economy" pieces is that they are Delayed Reaction.
How long does it take for the Economy to react to the Policies and Legislature? 2 years? 4 Years? a Decade? Or is it a natural "cycle?"
Now once we account for "time" as a variable, we have to determine whether the Executive (Enforcement Policy) or Legislature is primarily (or more) responsible for it. Since we change parties like we change underwear, it's really hard to attribute success one way or another in my opinion.
I think "business" exploits the environment to the best of their ability, and the incumbent party is "inconsequential."
How long does it take for the Economy to react to the Policies and Legislature? 2 years? 4 Years? a Decade? Or is it a natural "cycle?"
Now once we account for "time" as a variable, we have to determine whether the Executive (Enforcement Policy) or Legislature is primarily (or more) responsible for it. Since we change parties like we change underwear, it's really hard to attribute success one way or another in my opinion.
I think "business" exploits the environment to the best of their ability, and the incumbent party is "inconsequential."
(2)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I don't think it is inconsequential. I think business does what it has to depending on the climate. Businesses (companies/industries etc) have lobbyists because it does matter.
There are tax policies, regulation (EPA/USDA/Energy etc), international tax law (repatriation of earnings) and hundreds of other things that can steer a company on a decision and will have impacts on jobs/earnings/investment etc.
They will always exploit the laws/regs to their best advantage but government regulation/tax policies etc do have a real impact on decision making as well as where companies have to spend money to comply etc.
There are tax policies, regulation (EPA/USDA/Energy etc), international tax law (repatriation of earnings) and hundreds of other things that can steer a company on a decision and will have impacts on jobs/earnings/investment etc.
They will always exploit the laws/regs to their best advantage but government regulation/tax policies etc do have a real impact on decision making as well as where companies have to spend money to comply etc.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Cpl Jeff N. - I was trying to find a better word for it, but couldn't at the time.
I think the "majority party" isn't as big of a deal as most will lead us to believe. The NRA invests in both parties. Lobbyists invest in BOTH parties. Those investments have higher returns on one side of the aisle than the other (Unions on Blue, NRA on Red), but because of the time delay makes the CURRENT party less important because they're playing the "long game" vice the short game.
I think any business worth its salt has strategies in place for both parties and knows how to capitalize based on either scenario.
A simple example "Nothing sells guns like Democrats." It's not even policy doing it, it's shaping forces.
If we look back in time, to say the Clinton era, you'll hear about "the greatest Growth..blah blah blah..." President Clinton wasn't responsible for that. That era was years in the making before him. He just happened to be in office at the time. That's my underlying point. "Time will cure an economy if you wait long enough." It's hard for a single person to screw it up. We're just to big, and our system moves to slow.
I think the "majority party" isn't as big of a deal as most will lead us to believe. The NRA invests in both parties. Lobbyists invest in BOTH parties. Those investments have higher returns on one side of the aisle than the other (Unions on Blue, NRA on Red), but because of the time delay makes the CURRENT party less important because they're playing the "long game" vice the short game.
I think any business worth its salt has strategies in place for both parties and knows how to capitalize based on either scenario.
A simple example "Nothing sells guns like Democrats." It's not even policy doing it, it's shaping forces.
If we look back in time, to say the Clinton era, you'll hear about "the greatest Growth..blah blah blah..." President Clinton wasn't responsible for that. That era was years in the making before him. He just happened to be in office at the time. That's my underlying point. "Time will cure an economy if you wait long enough." It's hard for a single person to screw it up. We're just to big, and our system moves to slow.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google