[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| Title: | Market Investing |
|
| Moderator: | 2155::michaud |
|
| Created: | Thu Jan 23 1992 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Jun 05 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1060 |
| Total number of notes: | 10477 |
440.0. "Perot: quirk or correlation?" by NECSC::BIELSKI (Stan B.) Tue Apr 06 1993 12:14
from the Boston Globe business section (April 6) Investor's Notebook:
"Serious independent presidential candidacies
seem to lure bears to market
You might have thought that the presidential election's effect on the
stock market was long since over. Think again, says Smart Money
newsletter (6 Deer Trail, Old Tapan, N.J. 07675). "Serious independent
or third-party candidacies, such as Ross Perot's, have always led to
bear markets within 12 months." Here are the major such candidacies,
and the subsequent market losses: James Weaver, 1892 (down 41%);
Theodore Roosevelt, 1912 (down 23%); Henry Wallace, Strom Thurmond,
1948 (down 16%); George Wallace, 1968 (down 36%); John Anderson, 1980
(down 24%)."
I'm more willing to accept a rational correlation here than with who
wins a football game, but would like to understand the key factors.
Comments?
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 440.1 | | CADSYS::BOLIO::BENOIT | | Tue Apr 06 1993 12:25 | 11 |
| I saw the article too. First thing that came to mind is the reasons why the
independant candidates had a good showing in the first place. Seems to me that
a sour economy gives fuel to the third party candidate. Is this a chicken and
egg problem? Does the weak economy generate more interest in third party
candidates or does a strong candidate generate a weak economy? Seems easy to
answer. It reminds me of reading an article in the Wall Street journal or
Barron's and then making an investment decision based on the information. If
it's in the article, than it's already too late!
my two cents
Michael
|
| 440.2 | | VMSDEV::HAMMOND | Charlie Hammond -- ZKO3-04/S23 -- dtn 381-2684 | Wed Apr 07 1993 09:30 | 6 |
| I think that .1 is right on. A serious 3rd party or independent
candidate is clearly a strong indicator of popular
dissatisfaction. The actual root cause of that dissatisfaction is
irrelevant; if dissatisfaction is strong enough to spur strong a
3rd party or independent presidential bid, it is strong enough to
lead to economic and financial market downturns.
|
| 440.3 | | SOLVIT::REDZIN::DCOX | | Wed Apr 07 1993 12:27 | 16 |
| Previous "serious" 3rd party candidates had political agendae; far more
than anything ever advanced by Perot. None of the .0 mentioned
candidates campaigned on issues directly relating to the economy; those
issues (when brought up) were used to leverage political ends only.
None of the .0 mentioned candidates kept the economic issues "in the
face" of the winning administration.
Cause and relationship articles such as .0 remind me of the "legendary"
Eskimo who walked around snapping his fingers. When asked why, he
replied "It keeps away the elephants."
Then again, just my opinion.....
Dave
|