Comparative presidential stock market returns are always interesting and makes for good political fodder but pretty meaningless. I am not arguing policies don’t matter but the initial conditions or valuation when a president takes office has, in the past, seemed to matter the most on how the market does during that president’s term. Context, baby.
President Obama, for example inherited a collapsing stock market, which bottomed about 7 weeks after he took office. Bush #43 inherited the dot.com bubble, which began to collapse about nine months before he took over, and then existed office with a collapsing credit bubble, handing the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) off to President Obama.
Trump took office with record high valuations and commenced to pump the market higher with his tweets, a China trade deal coming soon meme, and beating the Fed into submission to drive interest rates to zero. Add to that the trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars in rescue and COVID stilumus packages, which drove monetary and fiscal policy in his last year in office, and here we sit.
Moreover, Hoover’s stock market really distorts the average for the Republicans. But hey, it’s politics not purity, no? But so does Silent Calvin Coolidge’s bubble. As does Clinton’s.
Given the intial valuation of a 180 percent stock market capitalization to GDP, either Joe Biden will be the first Demcorat with an negative stock market or the country is heading toward hyperinflation. When you figure that out let us know.
Election Day or Inauguration Day?
By the way, the last time Carol K. posted the following table we had some pushback on when should the clock start ticking to measure presidential returns: a) Election day, or b) the Inaugural?
We took a look at the data and found it actually makes the Democrats average look better. Sorry, Republicans. In fact, it even hurts Trump’s stock market return as we suspect that is what motivated the pushback.
The Dow 7.63 percent runup from Election Day to Trump’s inauguration was eclipsed by the recent 11.07% increase in the Dow from November 4th to the night before the Biden admistration took power.
2oth Amendment
A problem also arises when trying to nomarlize the lame duck period — from the election to the new president taking office. Prior to 1933, a new president wasn’t swown in until March 4 as is stated in the Constitiuion. It took an amendment to shorten the lame duck period.
The Twentieth Amendment (Amendment XX) to the United States Constitution moved the beginning and ending of the terms of the president and vice president from March4 to January 20, and of members of Congress from March4 to January 3. It also has provisions that determine what is to be done when there is no president-elect. The Twentieth Amendment was adopted on January 23, 1933.[1]
The amendment reduced the presidential transition and the “lame duck” period, by which members of Congress and the president serve the remainder of their terms after an election. The amendment established congressional terms to begin before presidential terms and that the incoming Congress, rather than the outgoing one, would hold a contingent election in the event that the Electoral College deadlocked regarding either the presidential or vice presidential elections. – Wikipedia
CAAG
It is interesting to see the Dow’s compounded average annual price return (not including divies) is only 5.54 percent since 1901. Makes sense as our priors are that is about the average growth rate of nominal GDP during the same period.
That is why we view the times we now live as an anomaly and not sustainable.
Sorry to burst your bubble but perpetual annual 10-15 percent stock market returns are not a Constitutional right nor an entitlement.











Clean & Pristine San Clemente
San Clemente wreaks of wealth (
San Diego Convention Center
After nursing the wounds of the 49ers fourth-quarter collapse, we were about two days into the trade show when an elderly gentleman stopped in our booth and began to chat with my colleague.
Let’s call him Joe and my colleague Jim. After exchanging niceties, the conversation went something like this.
Joe: Can you believe what is happening to the world? The homeless are overrunning the country. Shitting in public. You can’t even walk in San Francisco now without stepping in human feces! Those god damn liberals can’t run anything. The homeless have even overrun my town of San Clemente. God damn it!
Jim (from back east): No, haven’t really thought about or noticed it.
[I found out later Joe’s net worth puts him in the Top 1 percent and couldn’t really confirm if he was a college graduate. I almost jumped in and told Joe he was full of shit and had been sniffing too much Faux News. I was primed for such a debate as I’ve had many similar Twitter debates with people making the same argument about San Francisco but have, you guessed it, never set foot in the town. Their perception was all painted by hard alt-right pundits.
In fact, I was in San Francisco just the prior week and snapped the following picture to use in my Twitter debates. If anyone can find a human turd in the photo, I will send you $1000. The same goes for the pictures of San Clemente. No photoshopping.
Of course, every city has a homeless problem and San Francisco’s is more acute than most. But the problem is not as ubiquitous as Faux News portrays.
I also wanted to wrap Joe on the knuckles with the fact that the People’s Republic Of SF sports the most billionaires per capita by a factor 8x the second-highest, NYC, and the city has the highest rents in the nation, which might help explain, in part, its homeless problem. See our post 







