Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
It was written about and posted here so some like to think it does. And dates were picked to make somebody look better, and somebody look worse. I doubt this article would have been put out a month ago, nor posted on here.
Regarding dates, are not November 9th, 2016 and January 20th, 2017 respectively election day and inauguration day? What is fishy exactly or cherry-picked about those days in the context of what JoeD is discussing?
Regarding dates, are not November 9th, 2016 and January 20th, 2017 respectively election day and inauguration day? What is fishy exactly or cherry-picked about those days in the context of what JoeD is discussing?
I posted this because Trump was so vocal last year in taking credit for stock market gains during his term. We all know better, and so should the POTUS.
I'll type slow. The Bloomberg article takes into account from inauguration day on. It does not take into account the period from election day up to inauguration day. Why not include that period of time? If you included the dates from election day out about 515 days Obama and Trump would be pretty much the same. But the dates were selected to avoid that. Too funny, 444 days.
Comments
Any of those percentages is totally acceptable by me.
---Jan. 20, 2017 to date, +17.2%
---Nov. 9, 2016 to date, +24.9%
Peak = Nov. 9, 2016 through Jan. 26, 2018 at +37.3%
The honeymoon phase is over.