Then, the same people who are praising Trump now will be searching for someone or something to point their finger at.
Talk about convoluted thinking. Wow.
What would've been added to bring it up that much in term 2...?
The point I was trying to make is folks never give any credit to the other team's guy when he's in power but are quick to heap praise on their guy when they hold the office. The market returned an average of about 12% a year under Obama's eight years -- and he had next to nothing to do with that. Just like Trump has next to nothing to do with the market returns we're seeing now.
The reality is one person and one administration have next to zero to do with the state of the economy, even when that one person is the President. The forces that have the economy rolling have been in motion for quite some time now, and you're seeing that globally (not just here in the USA).
While the economy boosted under Obama says the numbers, no one can deny the effect Trump being elected had on the markets. With futures doings as well as they have since last years election, it'd be ignorant to suggest any different. But, some here posses that trait so, lets set back and watch.
What portion of $16T was added from 2009 to 2013 that was not part of the obama revolution, and what remaining amount was from 2013 to 2017? What goods and services equate the $16T, when, and where?
What parts were bush jr and obama responsible for?
Reduce the size of gov't by 85% and cut all freeloader tax funded programs and watch that trillion dollar budget and deficit disappear...
That said, as I've maintained all along, neither men deserve much credit for market movement. Obama benefited from the rebound coming off one of the largest financial crashes in history (a crash that his predecessor had essentially nothing to do with), a rebound that has continued into Trump's first year. Obama, Bush Jr, and now Trump are responsible for little, if any, of the value from the increased market capitalization.
When you press people for specific legislation or policy that Trump has passed to claim credit for the current markets, "expectations" is usually the only answer they come up with. At least that's how this discussion has went the last few times.
Expectations are certainly part of the equation. Hell, a company's market cap is essentially the market's expectation on a companies ability to generate free cash. But fundamentals matter a lot more than good feelings. Company fundamentals have been extraordinarily strong the last year and a half. We've had earnings beat after earnings beat. You can go sector by sector (tech, energy, finance, you name it) and there's a story why -- nearly all of which have next to nothing to do with Trump.
Yes, there is a Trump bump, particularly from expected tax reform (his trade policies are disastrous and will no doubt erode market value if they come to bear). However, he hasn't delivered any legislation yet and I sense the market is getting impatient -- the "Trump Trade" has been lagging behind the rest of the market with respect to returns the last few months. My opinion is you haven't seen a correction because the general economy is rolling, despite what's happening in Washington, not because of it.
I would say took credit is more like it. None of obama's policies really made a coin, free market capitalism is the real culprit...
So using your figures, Obama could have been responsible $16 trillion over 8 years, thus $2 trillion a year on average. And Trump is responsible for nearly $6 trillion in just one year.
It appears that you are proudly crowing that Obama is about 1/3 as good as Trump at increasing the value of the Stock Market?
Where to start...You obviously are missing my message. I'm saying neither man has much to do with changes in the stock market. I only bring up the Obama example as it's hilarious to see people credit Trump (when he had nothing to do with the market) but not give Obama credit for what he did to the market if they think the President is so important to the trajectory of the economy.
The market gave the same return in Obama's first year as it did in Trump's first year. While $5.6T in increased value sounds impressive, it is meaningless without putting it in the context of returns. The Russell 3000, which serves a benchmark for all U.S. equities, has returned about 22% since Trump was elected. The Russell 3000 returned 30% during Obama's first year in office, even if market capitalization only increased by a lower absolute amount (about $2T dollars). So had you invested the same amount during Obama's first year, you'd be richer than you would be if you did the same at the start of Trump's election win.
Again, neither man has much to do with this. And all of this is just to say that people that think Trump actually is responsible for the rolling stock market are (a) wrong and (b) clearly blinded by partisan politics as none of them would give credit to Obama for actually doing better with respect to market returns than Trump over the same time period of their respective terms (again, neither man should get any credit).
But I do love the sentiment. Trump has the economy rolling especially when compared to that socialist Obama -- even though Obama delivered higher market returns his first year. So, again, the market's rolling because we have a Republican in power (one with all this supposed great business acumen...lol)...but when the market was rolling when the big, bad socialist was in power it wasn't because of Obama. So, if expectations are so good under Trump and they're an obvious improvement over Obama...why did the market do better in Obama's first year than in Trump's first year?
Hmmm could it be that it doesn't matter much who is in power when it comes to the factors that move companies that move the market?? I work for one of the largest companies in the world...in my 15 years with the company, the President's name has never come up in a single business decision I've ever been a part of.
Just curious how much of Obama's "success" was due to all the taxpayer money he gave away to Wall St.?
WRT Obama.... Where was the market to go but up when Obama took over? Plus for many years there was really only one option of investment that had a snowballs chance at much return....... where else are you going to park your money? Other than the vultures with cash picking at the bones of peoples foreclosed homes.
The economy picked up DESPITE Obama trying to "fundamentally transform" it or trying to "necessarily skyrocket" the cost of energy. (note the quotes, his words, not mine). Natural gas discoveries destroyed his plans to bankrupt energy and make his chosen buddies rich after shoveling millions of cash at them (which they never paid back).
Speaking of shovels...... leftist socialists had to love his admitted lies about shovel ready jobs when he took the lions share of that "recovery" money and used it to bail out state pension plans and spent next to nothing on the infrastructure it was to go to. Now that was a real investment..... when called on it he said it didn't matter how the money got out there, you could drop it out of airplanes....... now that is what a community organizer thinks is the best economic investment for stimulus..... and about the extent of any of his efforts to ramp up the economy again. He saw it as a chance to tear down, not jump start and repair.
The comparison of their economic ideologies are unarguably night and day. There SHOULD be optimism in the business world with Trump. Just as there was optimism in the socialist world with Obama.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
One, it's all because of QE but that was bad cause we're still paying for it. Well, we aren't still paying for it...those assets have more than paid for themselves. But no, QE, nor Obama, was not responsible for $2T in equity gains in 2009. You're right that earnings are definitely pushing the market higher tho (which is not because of Trump).
And then we have a post that says the market going up now is because of Trump but when it went up under Obama it was despite Obama with nary a point of data to show how either statement is true. More of those good feelings, eh?
Japan is the only central bank that hasn't shown signs of slowing their QE program. None of them are fully committed to it, nor do they know how aggressive they can get without causing the same problem it fixed.
Rest assured though, the trend is for central banks to tighten monetary policy, which will result in a market slowdown, or even declines.
This is the longest period of time QE has been used to fuel a recovery that I recall. Every time they start unwinding it, the markets react in a bearish fashion. The feds strategy appears to be to unwind it slowly in small increments. We'll see how effective they are, but experience tells me it will have the same result.