• Well half of my losses have returned positive, but if we reopen too soon and have a second wave,...

  • Schwab's On Investing web-site has an interesting election-year article. Here's a few points from it & a link.

    Market performance in election years
    Looking back at the performance of the S&P 500® Index since 1928, the Schwab Center for Financial Research found that the market ended on a positive note in 17 of the past 23 presidential election years—or 74% of the time—with an average annual return of 7.1%.

    I’m often asked whether the market has historically performed better under Democratic or Republican presidents. If we look at the numbers alone, the short answer is: Democrats. Since 1929, the total return of the S&P 500 has averaged 57.4% under Democratic presidential administrations, versus just 16.6% under Republicans. However, investors should treat this as a historical artifact rather than an ironclad law of politics and the markets.

    More reliable is the market’s influence on election outcomes. To wit: When the S&P 500 has risen in the three months before an election, the incumbent party generally has gone on to win the White House; when it has fallen, the incumbent party has generally lost. Since 1928, this trend has been broken just three times—an 87% success rate—and it hasn’t missed since 1980.

    Here's the link:

    Happily, I'm supporting the party that has been historically been best for stock market performance.

  • As we say in Idaho, when very surprised --- I'll be dipped in dogschist!

    (Bloomberg) -- The torrid rally in U.S. stocks pushed the S&P 500 into the green for the year as easing lockdowns bolstered economic optimism. The dollar fell.
    A jump to a 15-week high on Monday extended the benchmark’s surge from its March low to almost 45%.

    s n p rally as of june 8..png

  • @FritzRay At this juncture it would seem my fears of a dead cat bounce were much ado about nothing. Oh well. Party on, Wayne! 🥃

  • Or are they? 🤔

    Or not a bounce? Aye, that is the big question of the day, eh? 🐕

    Dead Cat Bounce?


    High volume sell offs and ensuing dives in each of 2018, 2019, and 2020. Each of which increasing exponentially in magnitude year on year. Hmmm....... Maybe a pattern here? 🙃

  • So much for my stock market predictions. When the markets went to hell after the Covid Pandemic started, I figured I'd ride it out, but I expected the significant downturn to last for the rest of 2020. I consoled myself with thinking it might make it harder for the "evil-genius" in the White House to get re-elected.

    I did end up converting some losing stocks to bonds, but the stock rally confounded me.

    The S&P 500 index ended up with a 2020 gain of 18.4% Our mixed portfolio of stocks & bonds, heavily weighted with Vanguard Mutual stock & bond funds, ended up 13.96% for 2020.

    Never would have thunk it. As we say in rural Idaho: "I'll be dipped in dogschist!"

  • @FritzRay Heh, ever read any of Michael Lewis's stuff? Flash Boys and/or The Big Short, for example? The latter was made into a movie (which I have not seen).

    In short, the game is rigged and the deck is stacked. Real estate for the long term, i.e. for those who look ahead decades, is supposedly the "safest bet". At least according to the Real Estate industry. 😏

  • @toby Real estate as the safest bet? Well, yes. And no.

    If you had bought a house in Seattle or San Francisco or Vancouver years ago, you'd have seen your investment grow mightily. On the other hand, if you had bought a house in Detroit...

    Same thing for non-residential real estate. That shopping mall you bought ten years ago? Not such a good idea, was it? On the other hand, if you'd seen the e-commerce explosion coming, you would have bought land that you could have sold to Amazon or Walmart last year to be used for a regional distribution center.

    And whereas you can easily invest a couple of thousand dollars in a mutual fund or directly in a stock, you can't do that with real estate, where the minimum investment usually starts well into six figures.

  • @toby Haven't read any of Lewis's writing, that I recall. I have a pile of holiday books to work through, before I find serious homework.

  • Interesting article on GameStop and RobinHood app that brings up some important issues.

    Wall Street faces Washington crackdown after GameStop rollercoaster

    Robinhood drew millions of small, often young investors into the market last year with its popular trading app but has faced fines, lawsuits and accusations that it has failed to protect its customers. It enraged lawmakers on the left and right this week when it shut down purchases of the skyrocketing GameStop stock for a day, sending its shares plunging along with those of other companies, even as hedge funds and other sophisticated Wall Street players were allowed to continue trading.

    The fervor will ensnare a wide range of Wall Street players, igniting what many critics say is a long overdue debate about whether the complex structure of the market serves average investors or is fraught with conflicts of interest and susceptible to manipulation.

    .... snip ....

    “Unfortunately, it should be another ‘flash crash’ moment that wakes people up to their false sense of security that our markets are functioning properly when they’re full of fraud, manipulation and conflicts of interest that benefit the big players and screw the buy-side and the retail players,” said Better Markets President and CEO Dennis Kelleher, who advocates for greater Wall Street oversight.

    Long overdue but methinks, like post 2008 debacle, nothing will really change. Stacked deck will remain stacked. I get the sense greed overpowered morality in out guv'mint long, long ago.

    Yet... one may always hope.... I hear tell that and about $3.25 will get you some 'spro at Starbucks. 😜

    Update: This kind of dovetails Lewis's stuff so I thought I'd post it up. The corruption and gaming of our markets is pretty interesting stuff.

Log in to reply