It’s really as if nothing happened in the past 5 years.
Bush
Clinton
» Breaking News
Angelina Jolie @ Changeling Premiere
Indiana Teacher Brooke Biggs Arrested For Child Seduction
Elizabeth Hurley Accidentally Exposes Underwear At Charity Event
S&P 500 1/20/01 1342.54
S&P 500 12/30/05 1248
Nasdaq 100 1/20/01 2770
Nasdaq 100 12/30/05 2205
The real story is that the stock market has gone nowhere since 1999. That’s not so much a partisan issue as a rebuttal to those who claim that stocks generally go up 12% a year. Maybe in ten years they’ll make up for this lengthy period of stagnation. There’s always the long view. But stocks just don’t look like the obvious winner in the medium term the way they used to.
Wrong. Some go up a lot. My diversified investments have been more than 15% overall for 2004 and 2005 (but not so good during the recession…however, I was able to buy more while prices were lower so now I am much farther ahead).
No one who understands the stock market would refer to the past 5-6 years as “stagnation.” You don’t invest in the entire stock market.
JWG is being dishonest.
Even during bad economic periods, there will be stocks that perform well. There were people who did well in the market during the Depression. And there folks who lost their shirts in the President Clinton era boom.
The charts OW posted show the average for the entire market over the past five years. And that shows stagnation.
JWG claims people don’t invest in the entire stock market–that’s a specious claim–especially in light of the fact JWG seems to believe people only invest in the outstanding performers.
Boy, you sure dropped “Bush is illegally spying on us” like a hot potato, didn’t you? Must have seen those poll numbers.
Elrod:
“That s not so much a partisan issue as a rebuttal to those who claim that stocks generally go up 12% a year.’
Since 1930, small company stocks have averaged 12.7%. Large company stocks have averaged 10.4%.
JWG:
“& however, I was able to buy more while prices were lower so now I am much farther ahead).
Bingo. Smart investor.
Jadegold:
“The charts OW posted show the average for the entire market over the past five years.”
Nope. The charts above show the 30 stocks that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Question:
How did the Great and Powerful Oz command the stock market to do his bidding during the “President Clinton era boom”?
We all should have bought Haliburton in June of 02. It was selling for around $10 a share. It hit a high of $69 and closed Friday at $61.96. Lucky Dick Cheney has made millions in profit. I wonder if Bush owned any of that. I wonder if Bush has made millions on oil stocks since we invaded Iraq and caused the price of oil to go from $20 a barrel to $60 a barrel. I am sure the Bush family has made millions.
It is the culture of immediate gratification that has created this
stock market.
Slow, rock-solid growth over the long haul is the strength of
Blue-Chip stocks. Everybody wants to make their killing today.
If you look at the growth since 1929, 12% growth per year is
the average. But the baby-boomers and their offspring can’t
wait 10-15 years for their return on investment, they’ve gotta’
have it now. Buy-and-hold after researching the stocks with
firm foundations has become the ’short-sell’. “Churn-’em-and
burn-em” has become the strategy of both broker, and stakeholder.
So JWG’s finances didn’t really do as well as he said they did?
How the hell would you know what he invests in, Jade? Are you his personal financial advisor?
By the way, I’ll add the point that the DJIA consists of fewer than three dozen stocks and is incredibly undiversified. So using it as a sole indicator of how investments are doing is ridiculous.
So, please, let’s hear more from the financial “experts” about this “stagnation.”
JWG the S and P 500 is made up of the top 500 stocks. That is what my 401k was invested in. It went down about 50 percent from 2000 to 2002. Is still not back to its high in 2000. Lot of peoples retirement funds are in the S@P 500. And Bush wants to fix Social Security by having people invest part of it into the stock market. The best way to fix Social Security would to have never started spending all the surplus. If congress had never been allowed to spend all that surplus in the last 30 years, maybe there would be enough money for retirees to draw 3 or 4 thousand a month instead of $700-$1200.
By claiming that the previous 5 years is NOT “a rebuttal to those who claim that stocks generally go up 12% a year” I am being “dishonest.”
In other words, you don’t know shit. This next statement proves it…
Please point to an economist who would describe the past five years of the market as “stagnation,” especially considering the strength of the economic growth America has experienced following the recession at the beginning of Bush’s term.
Again, read what I wrote. I used the term “diversified,” so clearly (to someone who actually knows what he’s talking about) I don’t believe “people only invest in the outstanding performers.”
So either you are the one who’s “being dishonest” or you don’t know shit about the stock market. Which is it?
Interesting that JWG ignores that the S&P 500, which is 500 diversified stocks across the entire market, actually performed worse than the Dow.
Especially since a high percentage of 401k’s are invested in the S&P.
Of course if you had bought gold, oil, and bonds, you would be sitting pretty right now.
If anyone is interested in who is in the DJIA, you can find the members here.
Wait…I thought we invaded Iraq to get more oil so it would be cheaper. Now I’m learning that we invaded so prices would go up? It must be nice for the argument to work both ways, yes?
Try ignoring these three:
S&P SmallCap 600 / S&P MidCap 400 / Russell 2000
I’d link to their results for the past decade, but I’m afraid the comment would get stuck in moderation.
Anyway, there are dozens of examples of diverse indices with excellent growth during the Bush administration. So go ahead and cherry pick a couple of the media favorites, but anyone who knows about the markets will laugh at your “analysis.”
Anyone who still has their investments primarily in stocks several years before retirement is taking a huge risk. No financial advisor is going to suggest it. There are investments other than stocks that are more secure for when you get close to retiring and need less risk. People need to study their options within their retirement packages in order to plan and adjust their investments.
Yes, all of a sudden the Dow is no longer the barometer of the stock market… at least when a Republican is president and it’s doing poorly.
The Dow is “a” barometer, not “the” barometer.
Interestingly enough, there happens to be a LA Times article relevent to your post today.
Nice way to move the goalposts to protect your hero, JWG. What’s next, the Beardstown Ladies 50 index performing 1/8% better under Bush than Clinton?
The S&P, Dow 30, and Nasdaq 100 are THE barometers to the general public. Funds tracking them are the most heavily vested funds in the world.
And they have stagnated under Bush. Now there have been other periods in history where the same thing has happened, and this may or may not be Bush’s fault (it’s certainly not Clinton’s though), but the numbers are irrefutable, no matter how you spin them.
Is it so hard to admit that the stock market hasn’t performed since your god has taken office? Even with huge tax cuts and corporate welfare?
“So go ahead and cherry pick a couple of the media favorites, but anyone who knows about the markets will laugh at your analysis.
Showing a graph which indicates that overall the Clinton fiscal programs outperformed Bush’s is “cherry picking”?
“Please point to an economist who would describe the past five years of the market as stagnation, [Paul Krugman] “especially considering the strength of the economic growth America has experienced following the recession at the beginning of Bush s term.”
This “economic growth” is primarily fueled by military spending for the war Bush started - that’s one hellofa way to prime the pump for an economic recovery! Remember, war is good for business - and constant war is even better. By the end of his term, Bush will have spent more (and wasted more) than any president in history.
To bad Clinton’s “wag the dog” didn’t waste as much tax money on military expenditures as George’s “Fun in the Sun - Iraq style” does - the numbers would be even more lop-sided!
Here is the better graph of Bush’s accomplishments
http://nicedoggie.net/2005/wp-content/photos/nytstock.png
The slow bleeding of the NY Slimes……..The “Old Gray Lady of the Leftist Media”
Two points:
1) You’ve cherry picked one analysis and missed the point of the article. Do I need to quote the opposing analyses?
2) I didn’t link to the article in order to “‘prove’ how great the economy is,” which would be obvious if you could comprehend the simple sentences I wrote. The article points out that there are many conflicting indicators about the economy (there always is). Additionally, the Dow is not always a reliable indicator.
Sorry, “figures” don’t give me the vapors.
S&P SmallCap 600 vs. DOW - Up 63% in 5 years
S&P MidCap 400 vs. DOW - Up 70% in 5 years
Russell 2000 vs. DOW - Up 72% in 5 years
What does give me the vapors is your insinuation that these three indices carry as much weight as the major ones do. It’s a classy cherry-pick. Sure, as an investor I can always find a way to make money - if I’m smart enough. The point here isn’t that there aren’t indices that have portfolios containing stocks that are outperforming. The point is that the larger indices that cover a broader range of companies and have a much larger portfolio show that a broader swath of companies are flat over the last five years.
Anyone who knows about the markets will laugh at your analysis.
Presidents have very little, if any, influence over the stock market. Fiscal policy that affects stock market performance comes mostly by actions taken by the Federal Reserve Board. Interest rate hikes over the last few years combined with rising energy costs have contributed to the market malaise in 2005. Economic fundamentals are in good shape for the most part.
My bet is that when Greenspan retires and interest rates hikes come to an end (expected), the market will resume it’s recovery from 2003 and 2004.
And JWG is correct: As you near retirement, your portfolio should become more weighted to fixed-income securities. So instead of a 80%-20% stock/bond ratio, it should be more like 60-40 or 50-50. That’s what I advise my clients. I also advised them to buy in 2003, and those that listened were very happy.
From JWG’s article that “proves” how great the economy is:
We’re turning another corner…brace for success!
*snicker*
The stock market beyond the DOW and the S&P averages has done very well, which is obvious to anyone who pays attention to these sorts of things. Maybe you should read the LA Times article I just linked to for verification. Or maybe you should study some investment strategies. Most of us will continue to make money through our investments whether you notice reality or not, however.
Additionally, please point to any post in which I express my love for Bush. Just one. Ever.
I’m sure you can spot a cherry pick from a mile away. Your skill at it is second to none. Regardless, a smart investor can make money any time, even in a volatile market.
Either way, the President has little direct impact on such things.
Good grief. I did the exact opposite of cherry pick. I presented a more complete and accurate picture by providing additional information (including evidence and links) left out of the original post and others’ comments.
And in a market like we have now, most investors will make money as long as they diversify to balance against the few large companies that exert a disproportionate amount of influence on the results of the Dow and S&P 500.
Again, if you take the time to understand the various indices and what they represent, then you’ll be able to speak intelligently about market realities. Or you can just pretend that the Dow and S&P 500 are more representative than they really are and look silly to those who actually pay attention in order to make money.
Yes, the New York Times that uncritically reported Bush administration propaganda as news *has* suffered for their service to the right, haven’t they?
JWG,
If it’s only the big corporation indices (S&P, Dow) that are stagnant, why has the NASDAQ done poorly as well? Sure, there are a few small small cap indices that are doing well. There are others that are doing poorly.
But let’s be honest, most people invest in the stock market via mutual funds, 401(k)s, pension funds, etc. and they rely on fund managers to pick stocks for them. Since the vast majority of Americans aren’t uber stock experts they tend to buy major index funds on the belief that the major indices have gone up consistently over time, thus making such funds a safe and profitable investment. So by saying that the Russell 2000 or some other small cap index is doing well you aren’t really saying much about the market as a whole. Nor are you accurately representing the performance of most investors.
Actually, the real reason for the drop in the NYTimes is their idiotic Times Select paywall system.
Har! Har! Dr Pee.
I am going to have to bill you for a new irony meter to replace the
one you just busted with that marvelous comparison of the
flat-lined curve of DJI and the downward spiral of the NYT.
They represent the essence of what is wrong with the media—
cozying up to sources to the demise of their value to society
and themselves.
Embedding (inbedding, I should say) and being part of the
status quo is a big part of their decline.
Ho! Ho! Ho! to the myth of liberal bias of the media. They are
whores who are more concerned with continuing their upscale
lifestyles than they are promoting “Truth to Power” Yeah, there
are individual exeptions to the rule, but it is all relative.
What we need is another ‘Ramparts’ magazine.
Anyone who invests everything in one index gets what they deserve. You should diversify into more than large cap stocks…or else complain later.
For the last time (since I already know I’m making money), take a look at the majority of other indices that have made consistent gains throughout the Bush presidency, some of which are mentioned in the LA Times article to which I linked.
Free free to observe and follow only the Dow and S&P 500, then be prepared to complain while the rest of us outperform you into retirement.
“Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal”
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
I guess people who have actually studied the facts disagree OW.
Hmm, maybe people DON’T like liberal bias in their news?
Oh, sorry, I sullied these hallowed pages with facts again…..I know, I know, “2+2=4″ , my bad.
Happy New Year
“the doc”
Elrod:
“Since the vast majority of Americans aren t uber stock experts they tend to buy major index funds on the belief that the major indices have gone up consistently over time…”
They have most certainly gone up over time. The critical words are “over time”. And it’s not always consistently. All markets suffer downturns at times. It’s been that way for decades. What’s your point?
All major indices were quite overvalued toward the end of 1999 and into 2000. Especially small cap stocks. The economy was already showing signs of slowing. 9/11 and the Enron and Worldcom scandals shook investor confidence severly. A perfect recipe for a major correction.
Of course, if you and your friends here need to blame it all on Bush to justify your irrational hatred, go ahead. As for me, I’m staying invested. But I’ll do my homework first and blame only myself if I do something stupid like only allocate my money to one small segment of the overall market.
Peedro-
Great link there. I guess when the scale they are working off of is based on the following:
Then your claim has some merit.
Of course, when you move the posts so that Drudge is slightly left of center and only Brit Hume and The Moonie times are to the right, then EVERYTHING is going to come up as having liberal bias.
Make a resolution not to be so willfully stupid this New Year.
And how about the “unbiased” authors of that Earth-shattering study that found liberal bias over at UCLA?
And how about some of those findings of “liberal” bias?
Hey, that’s some crack analysis, there. The NRA is barely conservative, the Rand Corp. is liberal, the Council on Foreign Relations is liberal and the ACLU is conservative.
Like I said, great stuff you’re linking to there Peedro. What’s next? A link to the Flat Earth Society? There, I saved you the trouble.
But then again, according to Geoffrey Nunberg, (U.C. Berkeley and Stanford) of the study pedro cites, “It seems a pity to waste so much effort on a project that is utterly worthless as an objective study of media bias.”
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001169.html
Hey John, maybe the reason that only fox and wash times scored right of center is that THERE IS A FREAKING LIBERAL BIAS IN THE MEDIA!
Just a thought
Feliz Nuevo Ano….
Elrod:
“But let s be honest, most people invest in the stock market via mutual funds, 401(k)s, pension funds, etc. and they rely on fund managers to pick stocks for them. Since the vast majority of Americans aren t uber stock experts they tend to buy major index funds…”
It’s the rare client that has any idea whatsoever of the investments in his own porfolio. I’ve sat down with them and asked how and why they chose the funds they’re in and they say things like… “I dunno” and “I just took a guess.” It’s true of wealthy and middle-income earners as well. I explain proper asset allocation principles to them until I’m sure they understand it and they will do better “over time” as a result. It’s not rocket science.
Too many people in this country do things and believe things and never stop to wonder why, or educate themselves about the consequences of their own actions. Those of you who think government is there to make your lives happy and complete or let others make your decisions for you deserve exactly what you get.
Actually it’s not you tool. The Dow hold something like 30 stocks. Not much compared to the NASDAQ or S&P.
The charts OW posted show the average for the entire market over the past five years.
The DJIA does not encompass the “entire market.” It is a price weighted average of 30 blue chip stocks and therefore is not really indictative of what success people had investing in the stock market (IE, Oliver’s comment, “It s really as if nothing happened in the past 5 years.” suggests people’s portfolio’s are no different now than they were 5 years ago). The key there is the price weighted average. If certain sectors are doing poorly, the average is going to stay level. It’s not ’stagnation’ as the success or failure of the stock market is not measured within a 4 year window.
If you did some basic research, you’d stay away from tech stocks and manufacturing stocks over the last 5 years. However, if you put your money into specialty-health mutual funds, or into the service sector, then you probably did quite well.
In fact, the savvy investor probably found it easier to make money in the market over the last 5 years because of the lack of volatility in the marketplace.
Good investors can make money. I used to trade natural rubber futures on the Singapore commodity exchange. One day I got a call from a guy at Citibank asking about some charts for RSS1 futures. The guy had never even seen crude natural rubber, let alone trade it. Yet, by looking at 5-7 years of charts he was able to trade it and make money on it, simply because of his ability to spot trends which almost always repeat.
As such, Oliver’s little comparison is all sizzle and no steak. It looks good, but there’s nothing to it.
See my post on the leftists inability to deal with anything that isn’t 100% correct.
It’s all relative. When you have over 80% of journalists admitting to being democrats or left leaning, it is pretty unlikely we will see any competing study demonstrating the right wing bias of the media anytime soon……
Maybe it looks like THERE IS FREAKING LIBERAL BIAS IN THE MEDIA when the study places the ACLU as a CONSERVATIVE LEANING ORGANIZATION TO THE RIGHT OF THE NRA!
Perhaps when you skew the spectrum in a deliberate way so that everything appears to be to the left, then the liberal bias becomes evident. Sort of like that Tootsie Roll commercial, except that you’re singing, “The world looks mighty biased to me when liberals are ALL I see…whatever it is I think I see becomes a liberal to me.”
Just a thought, Peedro.
What time is New Year’s in fantasyland, anyway? 10:00 PM? Enjoy.
Actually you tool, the DOW may only have 30 blue chips in its portfolio, but it is the DOLLAR VALUE INVESTED IN THOSE 30 that is what makes them so important. The NASDAQ and S&P may have more stocks, but it is the dollar volume that makes an index a powerhouse. That being said, it would explain why Investopedia says “despite all the shortcomings, the Dow is still one of the most watched indicators of stock market performance”.
I guess that’s what happens when a kid who can’t even buy stocks tries to lecture about how the market works.
See Oliver’s post on calling bullshit.
Guess what, Peedro. BULLSHIT.
The study you linked to is a complete farce, but you are right that it it is all relative. When a study shows that the ACLU is a conservative organization, relatively speaking, pretty much everything else is going to be to the left of it.
As far as there being no competing study on right wing media bias, I guess as usual, things look pretty different form over there in fantasyland. Try google here in reality. It works wonders. And if you still don’t have a clue, check out the books written by David Brock and Eric Alterman. They are chock full of references and statistical analysis, as well as posessing in-depth appendices for further study on the opposing point of view that you think doesn’t exist.
BTW: I don’t know if someone has pointed this out, but like the last time Oliver tried to pull a fast one. The top graph (Bush) is one that is divided in quarters in 1 year, the other one (Clinton) if over a 6 1/2 year span. Why did you decide to point out ‘02 - ‘03, O’Dub?
Oops sorry, the res on my laptop shows the graphs extremely small and in horrible res, the first graph is ‘02 - ‘05, my fault, sorry.
But I don’t get the meaning of these graphs — you do know that Clinton left Bush a nice recession, don’t you?
“John S”, you keep saying ‘kid’ and you think that hurts me in some way.
Perhaps those who are ignorant of the stock market use it as an indicator, but the fact is the Dow holds no value to the rest of the market. There have been many of a time when the Dow was down and the NASDAQ was up by many points of vice versa.
I am not lecturing how the market works, even though I have been following it for several years and know many things about it, however to act as if I don’t know what I’m talking about just because I can’t invest is just ignorant.
“Most watched” doesn’t mean it’s accurate, which I’ve demonstrated several times in this thread already. Watch it all you want, but the people who pay attention to their money in order to make more money watch other parts of the market to balance the “shortcomings” of the Dow (repeated in the LA Times business article which was published today, coincidentally). Also notice your quote says “one of the…” which means there are others (some of which I mentioned previously).
But please keep arguing that I am “cherry picking,” “moving goalposts,” or any other criticism that that tries to say I don’t know what I am talking about in regards to financial markets. It is very amusing.
Many people who think the Dow is The indictator for the stock market aren’t real investors, they’re speculators.
Ian: You’ve never had an income beyond mommy and daddy’s allowance and you’re yapping about investments? Run along–Power Rangers is on somewhere.
No, JWG, you are dishonest. As I noted earlier, it is possible to cherry-pick to create an impression all is well but the fact remains, for the vast majority of people, most are treading water in the market or worse.
Even for the sort of shoddy research that comes out of the right, that “bias” study was ridiculous.
“In “A Measure of Media Bias” (pdf), Groseclose and Milyo attempted to “measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets” based on the frequency with which various think tanks and advocacy organizations were cited approvingly by the media and by members of Congress over a 10-year period. In order to assess media “bias,” Groseclose and Milyo assembled the ideological scores given to members of Congress by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action; examined the floor speeches of selected members to catalog which think tanks and policy organizations were cited by those members; used those citations as the basis for an ideological score assigned to each think tank (organizations cited by liberal members were scored as more liberal, whereas organizations cited by conservative members were scored as more conservative); then performed a content analysis of newspapers and TV programs to catalog which think tanks and policy organizations were quoted. If a news organization quoted a think tank mentioned by conservative members of Congress, then it was said to have a conservative “bias.” As Groseclose and Milyo put it:
In other words, the study rests on a presumption that can only be described as bizarre: If a member of Congress cites a think tank approvingly, and if that think tank is also cited by a news organization, then the news organization has a “bias” making it an ideological mirror of the member of Congress who cited the think tank. This, as Groseclose and Milyo define it, is what constitutes “media bias.”"
Let’s see…I provide multiple pieces of actual evidence that the market has been doing well beyond the myopic Dow…but I’m dishonest.
Again…I provided MULTIPLE sources to demonstrate that the SINGLE source used in this thread is misleading. Yet I am the one “cherry picking.”
Jadegold repeatedly provides no evidence in support of a declaration of “fact” that “most people” are not making money in the market.
Who’s being dishonest?
Oliver:
I’ll ask you again:
Exactly how did “The Great and Powerful Oz” accomplish the amazing feat of controlling the stock market during the glory years of his tenure?
The two graphs are over similar time periods, like they were the first time. Clinton’s was from his inauguration to Bush’s inauguration. Bush’s is from his inauguration to present.
And I’m amused that because it’s not beneficial to a Republican president the Dow Jones Industrial Average is no longer functional as any sort of measure of the stock market. I’m guessing if the index happens to tick up, that line of argument will no longer be operative? You chuckleheads are so transparent.
Your ignorance of the markets is transparent. The Dow’s movements are not primarily responsible for how investors make money nor is it “the” barometer” for economic activity. Only those who know nothing about the markets except for what they see briefly on the popular news reports would depend on the DJIA for analysis.
In the spirit of the new year, I recommend that everyone resolve to learn a little more about the markets and the various indices. Learn some diversification strategies and take advantage of your investment options. Resolve to take responsibility for managing your money and prepare for your retirement.
Educate yourself…It’s your money and your future.
OW I already said I made a mistake and even on my desktop I can see that the graphs res is terrible .. it looks like ‘02, ‘02′, ‘02, ‘03 to me.
Anyways, OW I don’t get what you’re trying to say here. One minute you say the market is the same as it was a few years ago, yet you’re not saying that Bush was handed a recession.
This graph would be great if only Bush was running for re-election.
JWG:
“In the spirit of the new year, I recommend that everyone resolve to learn a little more about the markets and the various indices. Learn some diversification strategies and take advantage of your investment options. Resolve to take responsibility for managing your money and prepare for your retirement.”
I agree and I’ll addd this. Learn the difference between “value” and “growth” stocks and funds. Learn what a “blended” funded is. Learn the difference between large-cap, mid-cap and small cap stocks and funds. Learn how to properly allocate your retirement monies among all these categories according to your time horizon and risk tolerance. Discover the role of international stocks and bonds in your portfolio. Understand the concept of Dollar Cost Averaging. Invest early in your life, stay invested and make adjustments as you near retirement. Don’t try to “time the market”.
Seek out the help of a qualified and Certified Financial Planner (CFP) or Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC). The best ones will really enjoy educating you and helping you achieve financial independence. Some of you sound as if you know nothing at all about the markets and need all the help you can get. Jadegold.
That’s because Bush wasn’t handed a recession. On the other hand Clinton was, he passed an economic program that the GOP said would be a disaster and it helped fuel one of the biggest bull markets in history. Bush came into office, passed tax cuts for rich guys and the market’s about the same it was when he came in.
Presidents don’t “hand” one another recessions. Recessions are a normal part of the economic cycle.
You really need to do some book-learnin’ before you venture into discussions about economics son.