southsider2k5 Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Nov 3, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) two quick things... 1) I've seen many studies showing that the market performs better under Democratic control versus Republican Control. I'll try to dig something up. 2) This market typically prices in predicted events 6 months ahead. Will the fed move rates in Q1, 2007, etc. Do you honestly think that the market hasn't priced in a Democratic House Majority over the past 3 months. The Dems taking the house has been a predicted event for a while now. on yahoo business front page right now.. the middle of the article points out Consider: even as Democrats' election hopes soared following a sex-scandal cover up embroiling Florida Rep. Mark Foley and some Republican leaders, the Dow Jones Industrial average climbed to a new record above the 12,000 mark. That suggests one of two things, according to Prudential Equity Group LLC: "either investors don't believe a shift is afoot, or more likely that they don't think it matters." "Control of one house of Congress when the president is of another party is not particularly helpful," said James Glassman, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "That is even true if the Democrats take control of both houses." Here are what the experts say... Glassman said there are two key areas where Democrats may assert themselves most effectively: trade and taxes. Democrats could play a critical role in helping President Bush revive global trade talks that collapsed over the summer, he said, though they will be tempted for political reasons to withhold support. On taxes, many Democrats strongly oppose the cuts Bush enacted in 2001 and 2003, but Glassman said the party might use its newfound power to force a "grand compromise" with Republicans that extends the cuts, which are set to expire in 2010, but with major revisions aimed at helping working families. Because the Democratic party's election success partly depends on victories by some conservative candidates, or "blue dogs," in districts that traditionally elect Republicans, the ramifications on fiscal policy are not clear cut, lobbyists said. "The easy criticism of the Democrats of an earlier era is not so easy to make anymore," said David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities. "The Democrats are splintered politically." I think you missed where I said "if the democrats take control of both houses of Congress" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 well quickly, all i could find is information on how the market performs under administrations, not controlled chambers. this information is from The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. I've pasted the summary and the link to the entire article. There's an old adage that a Republican in the White House means higher stock market returns. This adage derives from the generally held view that policies promoted by Republicans are more favorable to stock markets and capital formation. The humorist Will Rogers reportedly suggested that, in order to find the place where the Republican Party was formed, one should find out where the first business was formed. This has translated into Wall Street folklore that, since Republicans represent the party favored by business, the stock market prefers Republicans to Democrats. This Economic Letter examines the evidence related to stock market performance when Democratic and Republican candidates occupy the White House. Using data for the period 1871 to 1997, we find that the stock returns are almost identical under Democratic and Republican administrations. The Democrats have a slight edge in the pre-World War II period as a result of the effect of the 1929 crash and the subsequent recovery. However, since 1945, the returns have not been statistically different when Democrats or Republicans occupy the White House. These findings generally confirm earlier studies for different time periods and stock market indexes, although recent strong stock market performance gives Democrats a slight edge (though it is not statistically significant) in the postwar period. http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=%22stoc...=1&.intl=us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 I *GUANANFRICKENTEE* that if Dems change the capital gains tax as has been suggested, it will NOT help the markets. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 if we have to pay an extra 2 cents for every dollar earned by dividend income or capital gains, I guarantee it won't hurt it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 7, 2006 Author Share Posted November 7, 2006 OK so I'm catching up after an absence, and committing a faux pais - replying to a stale thread. But I felt the need to reply to 2 statements I found highly misinformed... QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2006 -> 11:58 AM) I have such strong beliefs against the economic principles of the democratic party that I'll be sickened if they take control. My only hope is if they do, that in 2 years somehow the Repubs can re-organize and find a way to get back in (but regardless they will need to somehow win the presidency cause that would be HUUGE). 10 years ago, I was right with you on this. But here is the thing - the economic policies of THIS GOP Congress and Presidency are fiscally irresponsible to a level beyond any evil the Dems may commit. The absurd arguments used by the GOP on this topic - that liberals are all tax-and-spend - is laughably hypocritical coming from a party who is entirely spend-and-spend in its current makeup. The economic policies of the GOP in Congress have made a 180 degree turn in the last decade. They have completely failed to control themselves and our country is paying the price. I had never, ever said this before this cycle, but I will say it now - if you want Congress to be fiscally responsible, then you now have to vote Democrat. They are by far the lesser evil in terms of government budget. The only economic policy being pushed by a significant number of Dems that disturbs me is the desire by some to increase (or return to previous, by some people's perspective) the taxes on capital gains. That would be a terrible idea. The other ideas I am seeing them put out there (balanced budget, leaving income tax level but re-balancing towards progressive instead of regressive, promotion of more use-fee structures for department-specific budget needs, etc.) in terms of economics are far superior to the current debt-happy GOP's policies. This GOP in this Congress is NOT the GOP of financial discipline. Those days apparently are over. QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Nov 3, 2006 -> 09:15 PM) if we have to pay an extra 2 cents for every dollar earned by dividend income or capital gains, I guarantee it won't hurt it either. If you knew even the basics about the capital markets, you'd realize that any increase on gains taxes will absolutely have an effect. Even if its a small increase. That isn't to say that's reason enough to not do it, necessarily - there are other factors involved. But if you increase it, there will be a negative reaction on the street. I for one would hate to see the cap gains taxes increased from current levels, especially since this country is so piss-poor at saving and investing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Capital Gains tax increases would devistate the markets. I am not pleased with the spending Bush is doing but right or wrong we are in war time and at that point spending is going to be ugly (I've long said my biggest fault with Bush is how he's spending too much money). That said I still agree with the underlying principles of the party and more importantly the fact that the party will not raise taxes and continue to try and say that the top 1% should pay for absolutely everything, and that the middle class should also pony up the dough to pay for ridiculous social welfare programs that are ran completely inefficiently and irresponsibly (why throw more money into a black hole???). I stick to the same guns on education, we keep throwing more money into a hole when we should be FIXING the problem before we throw money into the cracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 By the way, I know how ungodly flawed the logic is, but if the market had gone the other way we'd have heard the reverse, so what the Hell, I'm writing my own headlines.... DJIA surges to a new all-time high on Democratic victory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 shocker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Falling in the category of "overrated bubbles".... Google tops $500 a share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I want to start getting involved with stocks, but don't know where to start. should I pick and stick with someone online? Is it possible for me to do anything if I don't have access to my stocks because I'm at work from 6:30-3:00? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Dec 11, 2006 -> 07:48 PM) I want to start getting involved with stocks, but don't know where to start. should I pick and stick with someone online? Is it possible for me to do anything if I don't have access to my stocks because I'm at work from 6:30-3:00? Mutual funds. If you cant be constantly on top of things its better to hand it off to a professional and let them do the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 11, 2006 -> 08:59 PM) Mutual funds. If you cant be constantly on top of things its better to hand it off to a professional and let them do the work. Price online traders and let me know what you come up with in the end. I've found a place that lets you do individual trades for $4 and they have monthly packages too, like 5 trades for like $12, but it's through a bank membership too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted December 12, 2006 Author Share Posted December 12, 2006 Nuke's advice is good, especially when starting at that amatuer level. Stock picking is very risky if you aren't well versed, and only slightly less risky even if you are. Safe bet is to use funds and ETF's, making sure to research them for risk profile and performance first. If you do get into picking individual stocks, always follow this rule: no one security should EVER be more than 10% of your portfolio, and ideally, should be no more than 5%. One more piece of advice. If your employer does any sort of 401k, use it. If they match your money, always take out to at least the maximum matching level - its free money! Also, unless you have a big portfolio, look into using a discount brokerage like E*Trade, Ameritrade, or something similar. Don't use a portfolio manager or a full service broker. Its not worth it, at least when you first start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Also, most banks would wet themselves for the chance to have their financial rep (usually a guy through a company like raymond james) meet with you and it SHOULDN'T cost you a thing. If you have some $ to play with, I'd run by your bank and see if you could meet with someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Dec 11, 2006 -> 07:48 PM) I want to start getting involved with stocks, but don't know where to start. should I pick and stick with someone online? Is it possible for me to do anything if I don't have access to my stocks because I'm at work from 6:30-3:00? All I have to say is Frozen.Concentrated.Orange.Juice. But seriously.... I agree with the sentiment of going the route of a mutual fund. If you are seriously interested in trading in individual stocks, there is one rule of thumb which I suggest to everyone, and that is make sure this is money you won't miss if you lose it all. If it is something that will hurt you if you lose it, don't invest it in individual stocks. Mutual funds aren't sexy, but they are steady. My favorite thing to recommend is the index funds that mirror stuff like the Dow Jones or the S&P because they are easy to track, and out preform the rest of the funds and traders almost everytime. If you have anymore questions, let me know, I have been around this stuff for eight years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted December 12, 2006 Author Share Posted December 12, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 12, 2006 -> 06:09 AM) All I have to say is Frozen.Concentrated.Orange.Juice. I'm thinking that trading food products on the NYBOT isn't the easiest way to start in investing. Silk cocoons on the Kobe Silk exchange is a much better option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 For those who enjoy Fed-Speak, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank is testifying in front of Congress today and tomorrow. So far he has sounded pretty optimistic with the usual caveots (inflation is lurking etc) and has the stock market at record levels if we can close here. It will be interesting to see what he has to say over these couple of days. Ben Bernanke is a lot more blunt than his rockstar predessesor Alan Greenspan, so he tends to move the markets a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Yikes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 SELL! SELL!!! SELL IT ALL!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/27/markets/ma...dex.htm?cnn=yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 The volitility is just crazy right now. Its weird to have a big blood letting without a prolonged sell off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Is that CNN article out of date or something? The linked article only has it down 212. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 02:43 PM) Is that CNN article out of date or something? The linked article only has it down 212. Its down 383 as I post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 03:44 PM) Its down 383 as I post. Then STOP POSTING, man!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) Then STOP POSTING, man!! Heck these stupid markets don't realize if they are busy than I can't post on Soxtalk Just to let you guys know what today was like, this has been the busiest day in our companies (short) history. They have been around since 1998, and this is the most fills we have ever done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts