Posted on Aug 14, 2019
From Reagan to Trump: Here's how stocks performed under each president
2.81K
12
25
3
3
0
an interesting outline of the facts relating to the stock market under various presidents.
From Reagan to Trump: Here's how stocks performed under each president
Posted from cnn.com
Office of the President (POTUS)
Stock Market
Donald Trump
Barack Obama
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
2
2
0
I see I have been blocked by another poster. That's ok,,, but let me point out that President Obama had a slow GDP, but he also inherited the largest recession in our history. The market did well during his administration also.
From the article:
"The stock market bottomed out in March 2009, but then the economy slowly healed, beginning what would eventually become the longest bull market in American history."
From the article:
"The stock market bottomed out in March 2009, but then the economy slowly healed, beginning what would eventually become the longest bull market in American history."
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Also from the same article:
"Hoping to juice the economy, the Fed kept pumping easy money into the system. The unprecedented experiment helped send stocks soaring — the S&P 500 nearly tripled during the Obama era — but also contributed to wealth inequality and populism."
For every action there are ripples and tsunamis of effect.
"Hoping to juice the economy, the Fed kept pumping easy money into the system. The unprecedented experiment helped send stocks soaring — the S&P 500 nearly tripled during the Obama era — but also contributed to wealth inequality and populism."
For every action there are ripples and tsunamis of effect.
(0)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
MSG Stan Hutchison - There is a lot more to the stock market then who is in the Oval Office, really is more of a function of economic policies at the time, productivity growth, technological innovation, etc. Stock values are based on expectations BY INVESTORS of future earnings as well as the present value of future dividends. Expectations are far higher under Trump in just two years then they were under Obama all eight years. Additionally Trump is actively involved in fixing our triple deficit problem whereas Obama sat back and ignore it. Back to the Clintons. Bill Clinton was not the genius he portrays himself to be. However, he did understand UNLIKE OBAMA and like Trump that deregulation helps further Economic growth. So Clinton deregulated quite a bit and got the government to back off. The biggest benefit that Clinton rode but did not produce was the impact of Microsoft Windows and other desktop and server software that greatly increased productivity leading to economic growth. So Clinton helped a little but primarily rode a tech revolution he had nothing to do with.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I wonder what the Trump stock market would have fared without the stock buy backs.
(1)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
Stock buy back money doesn't disappear off the face of the earth. The value is translated over to stock holders. If we had a Democratic Party that cared about the country and had programs in place for upward mobility and income growth more people could participate in the wealth effect and we could add another estimated $1.5 Trillion to Economic Growth as well has have far more people participating in our great Economy. We are stuck with what we have because the Democrats feel getting wealthy is evil and it is better to make everyone poorer and more dependent on government than it is to raise everyones incomes and return the politician back to public servant from ruler / power broker. Why not peg taxes to % of income growth per year? Because restrictive Federal Budgets are evil when we have so much money to spend or so many Democrats feel. Nobody would be complaining about taxes if they were pegged as a % of personal income BUT it would remove Democrats from being the problem solvers and the goto people in political office and put them on a budget they could not stand. They do not want to be public servants they want to rule over the people and be power brokers using taxpayer money to faciltate it all. Not what the Constitution intended for any political party. So they spend ridiculous amounts of money to be everyones problem solver (and look for and invent even more problems to spend money on with no prioritization) and hasten the day when they will point to Socialism as the only remaining answer to dig ourselves out of a welfare state hole. The fork in the road is comming via Financial Crisis. Do we keep our Democracy or move towards totalitarianism? I already know which side the Democrats will head towards and this most recent election makes it clearer to the electorate which side the Democrats prefer. So the question is, will another Bill Clinton appear in the Democratic Party to pull them back to rationality and the center or will they head towards the cliff. Next few election cycles will tell.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
The corporate tax cuts has moved most of the extra earnings back to the corporations through stock buy backs. Trumps corporate tax cuts has decreased the national tax revenue. In 2016 he promised a zero budget deficit, but that is not working as planned. How did you determine that the lack of Democratic programs has an opportunity cost of 1.5T?
(1)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
MAJ Ken Landgren - OK so now I know you don't understand stock buy backs that is pretty fundamental when you buy stock back you exchange money for it and the money is not returned to the company unless the stock is sold again. In many cases the stock buybacks have a financial reason such as transferring money from stocks to debt to keep the outstanding debt at a specific ratio to earnings or net worth. If debt falls too far a company can become a takeover target even though it doesn't want that. As far as budgeting I have yet to see a budget passed by the Congress that came from the Oval Office. To be honest the budget that Trump submitted to Congress lowered spending but the Democrats declared it dead on arrival. That last sentence is a misread. I said if the Democrats were focused on raising incomes across the board instead of taxes across the board.......the economy would be $1.5 Trillion larger......and tax revenues would increase. I didn't determine that it was an article via Google.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
There are some timing issues in looking at the markets this way. The economy was in shambles when Reagan took office, thanks to horse crap management by the Carter administration (conspicuously absent from the article, but you have to start somewhere). Still, after a nasty recession in '82, Reaganomics was a great success for many. The S&L meltdown and Black Monday blunt a period of unprecedented success for investors in this period.
George HW was rediculously popular and successful as President until he backed off his "read my lips" pledge. That and a mild recession (and Ross Perot) doomed him, or else it would have been him at the helm of the onset of the dot com boom. Clinton benefitted from that boom, and admittedly set conditions where that boom was possible, He dipped out of office just before W inherited the dot com bust and the ensuing recession. Then along comes 9/11. I can't fault him for either of those events, but I certainly can for the housing bubble. Which Obama inherited the tail end of, giving him a nice valley to bounce off of and make his first term look more successful than it was, Still eight years of sustained (albeit slow) growth is quite an achievement. His numbers are skewed upward a bit by the enthusiasm the market felt at the very end of his term due to the election of Donald Trump.
It remains to be seen how Trumponomics will play out. The business-friendly tax cut has definitely had a positive effect on profits, wages, and unemployment, thus far without the deleterious effects on inflation. I am concerned that inflation will be a factor going forward, Also, the trade fights have definitely encumbered industries that trade heavily overseas, along with agriculture interests, It has won a wildly better new NAFTA, and also poisoned the well with China and to a lesser extent, others. Trump says the pain will be worth it when "better deals" get made, but it remains to be seen how this plays out. My guess is we wind up with a global trade realignment, with the US, Japan, ROK, Canada, Mexico, the UK, and other more minor countries on one team, Europe on another team, China and friends on a third team, and Russia, Brazil, and India coming out as swing votes, Good or bad for business? Probably a net negative, as business prefers stability to opportunity and risks.
George HW was rediculously popular and successful as President until he backed off his "read my lips" pledge. That and a mild recession (and Ross Perot) doomed him, or else it would have been him at the helm of the onset of the dot com boom. Clinton benefitted from that boom, and admittedly set conditions where that boom was possible, He dipped out of office just before W inherited the dot com bust and the ensuing recession. Then along comes 9/11. I can't fault him for either of those events, but I certainly can for the housing bubble. Which Obama inherited the tail end of, giving him a nice valley to bounce off of and make his first term look more successful than it was, Still eight years of sustained (albeit slow) growth is quite an achievement. His numbers are skewed upward a bit by the enthusiasm the market felt at the very end of his term due to the election of Donald Trump.
It remains to be seen how Trumponomics will play out. The business-friendly tax cut has definitely had a positive effect on profits, wages, and unemployment, thus far without the deleterious effects on inflation. I am concerned that inflation will be a factor going forward, Also, the trade fights have definitely encumbered industries that trade heavily overseas, along with agriculture interests, It has won a wildly better new NAFTA, and also poisoned the well with China and to a lesser extent, others. Trump says the pain will be worth it when "better deals" get made, but it remains to be seen how this plays out. My guess is we wind up with a global trade realignment, with the US, Japan, ROK, Canada, Mexico, the UK, and other more minor countries on one team, Europe on another team, China and friends on a third team, and Russia, Brazil, and India coming out as swing votes, Good or bad for business? Probably a net negative, as business prefers stability to opportunity and risks.
(1)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
Yes, most Democrats have a very poor grasp of financials and this article is another exhibit A in a long line of articles which demonstrate they have little grasp of Economics, Stock Market performance and lets extend it more into time value of money. You left a lot out as well including the Obama market should have much higher GDP growth given he had zero interest rates and almost zero inflation plus multiple Trillions of dollars injected into the Economy via Quantitative Easing (Fed is paying that money back now thanks to Trump). CNN doesn't mention Obama could have done much better had he deregulated as much as Trump did. Obama deregulated very little and instead added a lot of new regulations. Also Obama had Clinton running around telling everyone that 1.5% GDP growth was the best we could hope for and along comes Trump and doubles the GDP growth rate mostly via Executive Orders (showing again Obama was strangling the Economy directly). If there are any doubters out there to what I said above. Go to CSPAN and watch Fed Chairman Powell attempt to explain at a 5th grade level what the role of the Federal Reserve is to Congressional Democrats. It was broadcast in May I believe or you can look for his next appearance before the Congress. You won't know if you want to laugh or cry watching that fiasco. CNN is just showing again we have financial idiots at that network not investigative journalists by any means.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
MSgt Steve Sweeney respectfully, he said doubling the GDP growth rate, which is roughly accurate if a bit high. We've added 1-1.5% to the annual GDP growth rate.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google