Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Don’t Let Politics Interfere with Your Investing

beebee
edited November 6 in Other Investing
Thoughtful words IMHO:
Just because we may watch the market closely and debate what happens, and just because we follow politics closely and debate what happens doesn’t mean the market cares one wit about politics. It doesn’t. Thinking it does misunderstands how the market works and how the government works.

A simple lesson is to look at long-term stock charts and see if you can pinpoint election dates. You probably can’t.
image

Article:
https://crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2024/11/cws-market-review-november-5-2024.html
«1

Comments

  • The Market possesses no ethical sensibility. True. But who's in charge? The computers, I guess.
  • Nearly everything in my portfolios is green to very green today, which is fine by me.

    (I gave up trying to predict major market moves years ago.)
  • edited November 6
    You can find red in international stocks. If you are underweight on some of these that have nothing to do with the US, they may be potential buys. I have a few of these. Then I have FNMA which is up 33%.

    A good investor is like a Dr who is capable of taking on a critically sick family member as a patient.
  • edited November 14
    So, the article writer feels there is no concern from the president elect, as regards to what has been said by him, regarding many wide reaching areas for/of the functions within the government and society. Hmmmm. Presidency, house and senate in full control by .....
    I've written several times over the years of 'this time is different' and adjusted a portfolio as necessary.
    I'll stay with 'this time is different' ,at this point in time.
    Everyone will seek their investment path, as needed.
  • Red in international stocks may be just because of strong up move in dollar. Most global markets were up this AM in their local currencies (exception HK).
    https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$USD&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p25084282008
  • The bond market, along with interest rate sensitive equities would like a word.
  • PRESSmUP said:

    The bond market, along with interest rate sensitive equities would like a word.

    Of course. I bought into WCPNX and it falls. So predictable. Down another -.62% today. Rates up. Still planning to d-c-a into that pig.

  • Robert Frost: ”Something there is that doesn’t love a bond.”

  • edited November 7
    The market is all about politics. Taxation, monetary policy, trade policy, the deficit: all matter a lot more than random quarterly results. The problem is predicting the future.
  • beebee
    edited November 7
    wsanders said:

    The market is all about politics. Taxation, monetary policy, trade policy, the deficit: all matter a lot more than random quarterly results. The problem is predicting the future.

    Yes politics...politicians...they are very much the spoon that stirs the pot or sets out the punch bowl.

    Investopedia Article examines the politics of the election and its impact the markets:

    how-the-outcome-of-the-presidential-election-could-affect-your-stock-portfolio
  • I still remember how stupid I felt in 2016 after predicting that Trump’s win would be the death knell for the stock market. A fool and his predictions are soon shown to be as worthless as a farthing.
  • It appears Warren Buffett of all people may have fallen into the politics trap. He said at the BH annual meeting earlier this year "with present fiscal policies I think that something has to give, and I think that higher taxes are quite likely." He reiterated his belief that capital gains taxes would go up, which was part of his reason for preemptive selling.

    He stayed out of the race this year, but organized fundraisers in previous years for Obama and Clinton. It seems that his recent investment strategy has been partly influenced by his political prognostications. It will be interesting to see how he adjusts course going forward. He’s very pragmatic and never one to ignore reality.
  • Since 2000, I invest based on what has worked lately, never predictions.
    Buffet "only" missed 56+% in the last 2 years for his favorite advice, the SP500.
    https://schrts.co/SNtMNdYU
  • edited November 12
    FD1000 said:

    ”Since 2000, I invest based on what has worked lately.”

    I suspect most people do. They just don’t like to admit it.

    Sounds just a bit like the ”trend following” tactic discussed by Meb Faber in this week’s Barron’s. (Perhaps once known affectionately as “Student body left! Student body right!”)
  • @hank,

    I just noticed NSRGY is down to $88. Hopefully, everyone in this forum got out of that sucker with their toes and limbs intact.
  • edited November 12
    Yes politics...politicians...they are very much the spoon that stirs the pot or sets out the punch bowl.”

    Got me wondering. How have various Presidents / Administrations affected our investment fortunes over the time most of us have been investing? Keep in mind, please, that (political) decisions made today may have economic ramifications that last far longer (sometimes decades) beyond the tenure of the politicians that enact them (reasI oppose term limits for Congress.

    What I remember about different administrations since I began watching the markets in the 1950s:

    Eisenhower - Increased infrastructure spending. The interstate highway system we enjoy today was undertaken. Consider the effects on commerce. Also helped in the post WWII reconstruction of Japan and Europe. Costly of course.

    JFK - Promised to land a man on the moon by the end of the decade (60’s). It was costly and so strained the budget. But we continue to enjoy the benefits of the progress made in using space for our betterment. (GPS for instance). Consider all the economic benefits. Also, JFK was leary about getting deeply entrenched in Vietnam. Imagine how history and economics might have evolved had we not.

    LBJ - His legacy may well be our deepening involvement in Vietnam. Costly in lives as well as money. May have planted the seeds of the coming inflation - although demographics played a part. LBJ’s “Great Society” undertook increased Federal spending the country could ill afford at the time. This helped stoke the rising inflation.

    Nixon - Wage and price controls. A placebo / bandaid approach to combating inflation which was still in the 4-5% range. Significant in that it awakened public interest in the issue. Also, under Nixon the U.S. largely withdrew from Vietnam. Also, under Nixon the fixed price of gold at $35 an ounce was ended by international agreement.

    Ford - With the help of wife Betty, Ford introduced the “WIN” pin. (You can still buy one on eBay.) WIN stood for ”Whip Inflation Now” Another placebo approach. We Americans prefer easy solutions.

    Carter - With inflation raging (double-digits) Carter appointed Paul Volker Federal Reserve Chair in 1979. The rest is history.

    Regan - Increased defense spending sharply stoking inflation. But under Regan the steep Federal Reserve interest hikes led to a sharp recession beginning in 1981 - the worst downturn up to then since the Great Depression. Unemployment surged to 10.8% in 1982. But if you had money to invest you could pull 15% in a money market fund. Who needed stocks?

    In August 1981 Regan fired striking members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) after they went on strike violating a federal law against strikes. My personal view is that was the leading edge of an attack on organized labor that lasted decades. Over many years pensions were gutted and wages fell as labor’s ability to negotiate benefits waned. But this probably was beneficial for stock investors. The loss of defined benefit retirement packages also helped propel the rise of the 401-K. Some think this investment vehicle has led to a “boom” for index investing - though that’s a far reach.

    Also - In 1987 Regan appointed Alan Greenspan to Federal Reserve Chair. Under Greenspan equity markets surged. Greenspan’s tenure ended in 1986. Critics sight his monetary policy as too lax and stoking inflation in later years.

    Bush 1 - Negotiated and signed NAFTA, expanding global trade. This has paradoxically been blamed by some for loss of jobs in the U.S. - although unemployment remains low. I think the ongoing political repercussions from NAFTA do reverberate through the economy today. But they are hard to quantify.

    Clinton - We actually achieved a balanced budget under Clinton. But his personal problems partly overshadowed his accomplishments.

    Bush 2 - In Bush’s term a global recession of great magnitude ensued which cost equity (index) investors around 50% before it ended 15 months later. Junk bonds were hit hard. The Fed undertook strong monetary stimulus. The effects of those Fed stimulative measures are likely still being felt today. Federal spending increased sharply. “President George W. Bush's economic policies added $6 trillion to the national debt by funding two wars and three tax cuts.” (from the balance money.com).

    I’ll stop here. I think the effects of the last three Presidents are too recent to fully access, and very controversial, as all three continue to be actively involved in the politics of the day. Further - a global pandemic that began in 2020 greatly altered the stage. Any administration would have had trouble coping with the economic challenges. Fiscal and monetary emergency measures during the pandemic are seen as one cause of the recent inflation - along with the distortions created by the pandemic itself.
    -


    Question: Would knowing in 1950 (err … pick your start date) what future politicians would do have affected the way you would have chosen to invest for the long term?
  • Buffet has been written off many times previously. He's done quite well for shareholders over a long time period. 2 year performance compare to SP500 has no meaning imo.
  • Question: Would knowing in 1950 what future politicians would do have affected the way you chose to invest for the long term?

    Remember the now-classic warning from Eisenhower (elected 1952) about the Military Industrial Complex? If someone had no compunctions about it, investing in defense/military equipment stocks would have reaped you a fortune--- provided you sold Boeing before the current corporate meltdown. Eh?
  • edited November 12
    Remember the now-classic warning from Eisenhower (elected 1952) about the Military Industrial Complex?

    Yes. It made the evening news that day. Remember it well. All the networks carried it. (Tuesday January 17, 1961). And we discussed it in our 8th grade Civics course the following day.

    @Crash. War will always be a good investment. Look for SpaxeX to go public sometime in the next few years. Investors will rush to buy. It is deeply involved in military applications although most details are kept secret. A military outpost (perhaps an invincible “doomsday” command center) on the dark side of the moon sometimes in the next 10 years is not beyond the realm of possibilities. With the advent of remote drone warfare the location of a command center can be thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of miles distant. Fortunes will be made. (Poor Ike had no idea.)

    I checked. It takes only 1.2 seconds for a radio wave to travel from moon to earth.
  • edited November 13
    hank said:

    FD1000 said:

    ”Since 2000, I invest based on what has worked lately.”

    I suspect most people do. They just don’t like to admit it.

    Sounds just a bit like the ”trend following” tactic discussed by Meb Faber in this week’s Barron’s. (Perhaps once known affectionately as “Student body left! Student body right!”)
    I read Faber years ago; his funds have not done well; the devil is in the details. After years of tweaking, my conclusions are: a human must interfere to make the right decision; automatic trades don't work. Markets change all the time. You must be nimble, expect the worst, know when high risk is really elevated...and keep tweaking and looking in the back mirror.

    Lastly, investing based on politics is really bad idea, especially when you have XXX.
  • there are a few coworkers I know who have taken their 401k's to settlement funds largely fearing the end of democracy is nigh. one was concerned I wasnt' concerned. I was like didn't you do this in 2016 too? they said yes. I said you realize that from nov 16 to nov 17 the market went up like 30%? (they were not aware).

    "but this time is different"....every day is different. everyday something happens in the world in a way that hasn't happened before. they may not be categorically black swan events, lets call them grey swans. and yet the world markets have prevailed. sure their gains and profits have swung to and fro but they have prevailed.
  • Dunno...when you have yellen issuing multiplies of standard deviation of short term tbills to keep bond volatility and rates suppressed to allegedly get her gal elected, I said allegedly...and lots of government debt rolling off over the next few years into higher interest debt..along with our right fudging of employment, questionable inflation numbers...and now if the market dips we won't have ole yeller "becoming concerned" and thus juicing the markets at every slight down turn .. something about the tga and still very high liquidity...how can anyone think this is not command and control manipulation related to political chicanery? What's the old joke. The markets are not like a casino, in a casino you can lose money. Love the cray cry about the end of democracy...please. for sure with Biden and Harris we were going down that path. Talk to any cuban living in Miami or an elder who lived under Tito. They'll tell you Biden and Harris were following the same playbook....start with universities with the young people, control the media, assert control over the population, be divisive, state outrageous lies repeatedly...
  • edited November 14
    Since when have mutual funds in their prospectuses felt a need to caution investors that domestic political events might result in loss of money?

    ”Some political leaders around the world (including in the U.S. and certain European nations) have been and may be elected on protectionist platforms, raising questions about the future of global free trade. Global trade disruption, significant introductions of trade barriers and bilateral trade frictions, together with any future downturns in the global economy resulting therefrom, could adversely affect the financial performance of the Fund and its investments.”

    Principal Risks of Investing in the Fund / Geopolitical Risk

    @bee / The concern noted would seem to be right down your pipe. Obviously Cohen & Steers felt a need to caution investors that politics might indeef “interfere with your investing.”

    (Duly warned, I went ahead and initiated an investment in this fund today.)


    @Baseball_Fan - You have in the past invested with John Hussman. Has he had any comments lately re the election outcome and how it may affect the investment landscape? Just curious if you happen to know. I don’t know if you still read Bill Fleckenstein. I continue to, despite being miles apart politically. I do learn a lot about investing from him. I mention this, because some of your wild assertions like ”you have yellen issuing multiplies of standard deviation of short term tbills to keep bond volatility and rates suppressed to allegedly get her gal elected” appear to be right out of Bill’s playbook.

    (Generally, we capitalize the first letter of a proper noun. So your “yellen” is an unusual departure from standard English - whether intentional or by oversight.)
  • edited November 14
    I sold most of my bond fund holdings during 2020 and 2021 and invested most of the proceeds into utility stocks -- favoring those having at least a somewhat green look to them. Those stocks recently peaked at about 8% of my investment portfolio. Utility stocks have fared reasonably well over that time period. This morning I scaled by my allocation to utility stocks and sold one of those stocks. That decision was somewhat influenced by my expectation the incoming administration will be anti-green -- so it was influenced by politics. (The decision not to sell more was influenced by my expectation the AI boom will continue to require more energy to power more data centers and the overall green transition will continue, although more slowly, under the leadership of the incoming administration.) Anyway, I used the proceeds to buy some more NRDCX and to establish a toehold in BINC. So, I slightly shifted my portfolio from the utility stock sector back into bonds for the first time since 2020.

    It seems to me politics deserves some consideration -- at least at the margins -- when portfolio adjustments get made.
  • Drill baby drill will definitely be a theme for the incoming administration. Any suggestions on how best to capitalize on that?
  • stayCalm said:

    Drill baby drill will definitely be a theme for the incoming administration. Any suggestions on how best to capitalize on that?

    I've owned midstream LP Energy Transfer for 2 or 3 years. Ticker = ET.
    https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ET/
  • stayCalm said:

    Drill baby drill will definitely be a theme for the incoming administration. Any suggestions on how best to capitalize on that?

    Fill up the tank and go for a drive?

    Gas is under 3 bucks for the first time since we moved to the Phoenix metro eight years ago. Under the circumstances, why would they want to drill?
  • WABAC said:

    stayCalm said:

    Drill baby drill will definitely be a theme for the incoming administration. Any suggestions on how best to capitalize on that?

    Fill up the tank and go for a drive?

    Gas is under 3 bucks for the first time since we moved to the Phoenix metro eight years ago. Under the circumstances, why would they want to drill?
    Exactly the point. Why don't the Saudis pump more? Why do they host summits to set limiting output figures? They're trying to keep prices up on the commodity. If the price drops, a lot of production becomes financially imprudent. Add to that, there is only so much refining capacity available; oil is of little use without refining. People have naive notions of what is helpful and what is not, and often overlook financial restraints.
  • edited November 14
    Deleted
Sign In or Register to comment.