Watch The Market Tank If Obama's Elected...

saveuplife · November 2008

jimed14 wrote:

Yeah, and it had nothing to do with the horrible news with retail sales ... with the automakers ... the fact the October jobs report came out and 240k jobs were lost (the number leaked on Wednesday night) ... ot the fact that unemployment hit a 14 year high ...

Get real.

Get real? Ha haa haaa!

First, the jobs report (employment and unemployment) was released on Friday and it was not leaked. You can't leak that info. I know because I use report on that as soon as it's released. You can't access it until it's released.

Second, retail sales fell 1% in October after a 1% gain in September. THat's clearly not what caused the dow to tank.

Third, auto sales do not move markets.... and although they can shift momentum. This was not a momentum shift... it was a plummet.

Sheep it up.

jimed14 · November 2008

saveuplife wrote:

Get real? Ha haa haaa!

First, the jobs report (employment and unemployment) was released on Friday and it was not leaked. You can't leak that info. I know because I use report on that as soon as it's released. You can't access it until it's released.

Second, retail sales fell 1% in October after a 1% gain in September. THat's clearly not what caused the dow to tank.

Third, auto sales do not move markets.... and although they can shift momentum. This was not a momentum shift... it was a plummet.

Sheep it up.

really leads to a no win situation for you ...

If Obama does not succeed, indeed, you are right ... all hail you ... and, the country, in which you live, is in for shitty financial times ahead.

if indeed, Obama does succeed, you look like a fool.

Must be rough inside to cheer so openly for the country's failure.

DriftingByTheStorm · November 2008

saveuplife wrote:

Get real? Ha haa haaa!

First, the jobs report (employment and unemployment) was released on Friday and it was not leaked. You can't leak that info. I know because I use report on that as soon as it's released. You can't access it until it's released.

Second, retail sales fell 1% in October after a 1% gain in September. THat's clearly not what caused the dow to tank.

Third, auto sales do not move markets.... and although they can shift momentum. This was not a momentum shift... it was a plummet.

Sheep it up.

Dude.
I don't even like Obama, but i gotta say ...

the market most likely moved down because of the simple fact that it was reaching the top of its "range".

10K is a resistance level, and there were plenty of technical reasons for the charts to go lower.

Secondly, the phrase "buy the rumour, sell the news" applies here just as anywhere.

Clearly the market was EXPECTING an Obama win.
It got what it expected, and it sold the news.

Big whoop.

I'm as much a market fearmonger as anyone,
but this is silly.

The currently "economic" climate in America dictates a certain pricing in equities.

The market already had a stupid run prior to Obama's election.

There was NO reason for the market to be considering a rise above 10,000.

I would say 8k-10k is going to be a medium term range for this market ... out until the end of winter even.

Surely it is no shock to you that the market is under significant pressures these days, right?

saveuplife · November 2008

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Dude.
I don't even like Obama, but i gotta say ...

the market most likely moved down because of the simple fact that it was reaching the top of its "range".

10K is a resistance level, and there were plenty of technical reasons for the charts to go lower.

The main reason charts went lower was because of the Obama win and the mandate to the Democratic Party. If you think markets knew the exact magnitude outcome of an election, prior to the election... you are wrong.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Secondly, the phrase "buy the rumour, sell the news" applies here just as anywhere.

Clearly the market was EXPECTING an Obama win.
It got what it expected, and it sold the news.

Big whoop.

The market may have expected a win, but not to this extent and they didn't know FOR SURE. That's the point. If you think business, in general, is cheering a Democratic Party mandate... I think you know better.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I'm as much a market fearmonger as anyone,
but this is silly.

The currently "economic" climate in America dictates a certain pricing in equities.

The market already had a stupid run prior to Obama's election.

Fearmonger? Come on, I stated markets would plummet and they DID. A stupid run? lol This is stupid.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

There was NO reason for the market to be considering a rise above 10,000.

Thank you Mr. Market for telling us what the market will and won't do. Why is it that you think you know better than anyone else on here in regards to market performance.... or for that matter... me?

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I would say 8k-10k is going to be a medium term range for this market ... out until the end of winter even

Surely it is no shock to you that the market is under significant pressures these days, right?

The market's under pressure. But, there's as much of a chance of it going up as ther is going down. The POINT of this thread was not to debate trends in the market. It was to state that the Obama win will be looked upon negatively by the market.... and the point was proven by the data.

DriftingByTheStorm · November 2008

saveuplife wrote:

The main reason charts went lower was because of the Obama win and the mandate to the Democratic Party. If you think markets knew the exact magnitude outcome of an election, prior to the election... you are wrong.

I happen to think the markets were more or less efficient at predicting the outcome.

The fact of the matter remains that the Democrats did NOT secure a super majority. Beyond that, the "magnitude" of landslide-ed-ness was relatively unimportant. IMHO.

saveuplife wrote:

The market may have expected a win, but not to this extent and they didn't know FOR SURE. That's the point. If you think business, in general, is cheering a Democratic Party mandate... I think you know better.

See above comment.
And again, business in general may not prefer a Democratic government, but the markets, in general, had already predicted and discounted that probability. And this is NOT just MY say so. This is coming from countless market analysts, traders, and "experts" in the field. I happen to trust their opinion on the markets over yours. Sorry.

saveuplife wrote:

Fearmonger? Come on, I stated markets would plummet and they DID. A stupid run? lol This is stupid.

A run from 7800 to 10,000 in less than two weeks, when it took a half year to move down that % is stupid. Yes.

saveuplife wrote:

Thank you Mr. Market for telling us what the market will and won't do. Why is it that you think you know better than anyone else on here in regards to market performance.... or for that matter... me?

I don't claim to know any more or less than you.
I do claim to pay significant attention to the markets, and to the pundits on the markets. Without making myself sound lame, some days i watch 8+ hours of CNBC (because, honestly, i find it to be one of the most substantial things on television).

Let me tell you about the conversation they were having the other day, just prior to the elections, when Mr. "Fraidy-Cat Market" Dennis Kneale asked the octo-box panel of EIGHT industry vets, "DO YOU THINK THIS MARKET WILL REACH 10,000 BY YEAR END? ... Anyone? ANY OF YOU willing to go out on a limb and say 10,000 by Year End?"

NOT ONE OF THE EIGHT SAID YES.
And i happen to view the opinions of 8 industry vets with a substantial amount of priority to yours. Nothing to do with my ego, its just my rational brain making a rational decision. SURE, it COULD hit 10,500 or 11,000 .... but it is UNLIKELY and THE NUMBERS DO NOT SUPPORT IT.

saveuplife wrote:

The market's under pressure. But, there's as much of a chance of it going up as ther is going down. The POINT of this thread was not to debate trends in the market. It was to state that the Obama win will be looked upon negatively by the market.... and the point was proven by the data.

Now you have just ignominiously supplanted correlation for causation,
and that is just silly.

You say the Democratic win "Caused" this 2 day decline.
I, along with plenty of other folks with half a brain, tend to think it was a simple reaction to short-term overpricing in the market. We had several very low volume days, wherein clearly the sellers had done their selling, and some fearless buyers made some buys. But the rally was simply unsustainable.

Again, if it took over a year for the market to move down 20%,
why in gods name would you expect a RATIONAL market to move up 10% in less than one week?

:cool:

edpearson · November 2008

Historically, the markets do tank the day after a Democrat is elected and they're up when a Republican is elected. For whatever reasons, this is what history shows. However, in the long-term, the markets grow at a much higher rate when Dems are in the White House as opposed to the GOP. Here's some text that my broker emailed me the day after the election (guess he was worried I'd do a sell-off???):

"An interesting fact – Since 1920 when there has been a Democrat President the return in the Market has been 12% and the years that a Republican has been President the Market return has been 4%."

So, a drop in the market the day after an election is no big cause for alarm. Not sure why so many folks in this forum are coming down on Obama. The shit has hit the fan and even though I'm not a Democrat, I'd much take my chances with the candidate who promises "change" instead of the one who has publicly claimed he didn't know much about the economy (and had an idiot as his VP). I'm not much of a finance guy so I can't give specifics on what makes Obama better or worse. Basically, I'm just going on historical trends, but that's enough to make Obama a safer pick over McCain-Palin.

DriftingByTheStorm · November 2008

edpearson wrote:

I'd much take my chances with the candidate who promises "change" instead of the one who has publicly claimed he didn't know much about the economy (and had an idiot as his VP).

Not that i would have even considered a vote for McCain,
but i would take an honest idiot over a lying faux-Populist sophisticat.

I'm just saying.

saveuplife · November 2008

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I happen to think the markets were more or less efficient at predicting the outcome.

The fact of the matter remains that the Democrats did NOT secure a super majority. Beyond that, the "magnitude" of landslide-ed-ness was relatively unimportant. IMHO.

See above comment.
And again, business in general may not prefer a Democratic government, but the markets, in general, had already predicted and discounted that probability. And this is NOT just MY say so. This is coming from countless market analysts, traders, and "experts" in the field. I happen to trust their opinion on the markets over yours. Sorry.

A run from 7800 to 10,000 in less than two weeks, when it took a half year to move down that % is stupid. Yes.

I don't claim to know any more or less than you.
I do claim to pay significant attention to the markets, and to the pundits on the markets. Without making myself sound lame, some days i watch 8+ hours of CNBC (because, honestly, i find it to be one of the most substantial things on television).

Let me tell you about the conversation they were having the other day, just prior to the elections, when Mr. "Fraidy-Cat Market" Dennis Kneale asked the octo-box panel of EIGHT industry vets, "DO YOU THINK THIS MARKET WILL REACH 10,000 BY YEAR END? ... Anyone? ANY OF YOU willing to go out on a limb and say 10,000 by Year End?"

NOT ONE OF THE EIGHT SAID YES.
And i happen to view the opinions of 8 industry vets with a substantial amount of priority to yours. Nothing to do with my ego, its just my rational brain making a rational decision. SURE, it COULD hit 10,500 or 11,000 .... but it is UNLIKELY and THE NUMBERS DO NOT SUPPORT IT.

Now you have just ignominiously supplanted correlation for causation,
and that is just silly.

You say the Democratic win "Caused" this 2 day decline.
I, along with plenty of other folks with half a brain, tend to think it was a simple reaction to short-term overpricing in the market. We had several very low volume days, wherein clearly the sellers had done their selling, and some fearless buyers made some buys. But the rally was simply unsustainable.

Again, if it took over a year for the market to move down 20%,
why in gods name would you expect a RATIONAL market to move up 10% in less than one week?

:cool:

First, I don't want to go back and forth with someone who watches eight-plus hours of CNBC a day. No offense, but if that's true... it's sad. I get paid while it's on in the background. It's good only for tracking the market. I can form my own opinion and do not need to gain a perspective by listening to an idiot on TV tell me what it should be. In fact, I was on CNBC a number of times, and if I was watching myself I'd still be suspect of my own opinion. People who are in the know do not need to force-fed by talking heads in order to inform themselves.

Bottom line.... I told people here the market would go down if Obama was elected. It went down significantly. You can say "CNBC said that's not why it went down" all you want. I know for fact that political/voting decisions can have affects on markets. Look up public choice economics... read a few academic papers. Pro-market pundits occassionally need to educate themselves on what it means to conduct empirical analysis and take thier market-bias out of the equation.

DriftingByTheStorm · November 2008

saveuplife wrote:

First, I don't want to go back and forth with someone who watches eight-plus hours of CNBC a day. No offense, but if that's true... it's sad. I get paid while it's on in the background. It's good only for tracking the market. I can form my own opinion and do not need to gain a perspective by listening to an idiot on TV tell me what it should be. In fact, I was on CNBC a number of times, and if I was watching myself I'd still be suspect of my own opinion. People who are in the know do not need to force-fed by talking heads in order to inform themselves.

Bottom line.... I told people here the market would go down if Obama was elected. It went down significantly. You can say "CNBC said that's not why it went down" all you want. I know for fact that political/voting decisions can have affects on markets. Look up public choice economics... read a few academic papers. Pro-market pundits occassionally need to educate themselves on what it means to conduct empirical analysis and take thier market-bias out of the equation.

At anytime if you want to share with me ANY of your "EMPIRICAL" analysis, just let me know.

Until then, all that remains here is a difference of opinion, with your end of the argument consisting of an unsupported thesis, and a far from "proven" conclusion.

I have also found that desparaging comments about CNBC tend to be the hallmark of both the most egregiously pompous traders, and the most egregiously poor traders.

CNBC is just a medium of communication.
Sometimes there is blatant propaganda to be found (like most of the scripted things Dennis Kneale has to say) ... but more often than not you are simply getting the honest opinions of those actually in the industry.

saveuplife wrote:

In fact, I was on CNBC a number of times, and if I was watching myself I'd still be suspect of my own opinion.

Still not sure whether that line alone puts you in the egregiously pompous or egrigiously poor category.

And please, spare me your great list of fortunes and sucesses.
I'm not here to suck you off.

Watch The Market Tank If Obama's Elected...

Comments

Categories