Who's best for the market? | Arkansas Blog

Who's best for the market?



I'm the son of a stockbroker. It was an article of faith in my house -- a product of my dad's experience and not his garden variety southern Democrat politics -- that Democratic presidents were better for business. My mother, who managed their little mom & pop brokerage office in South Louisiana, was a Reagan-style Republican generally, but she didn't quarrel with this opinion. She saw the pay stubs each month.

I wish BWB was still around. I'd  send him this NY Times article. He'd smack his palm on the desk, laugh that big laugh and start calling  his Republican clients to say  "I told you so." This one's for you, Waddy.

Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.

Comments (9)

Showing 1-9 of 9

Add a comment

Add a comment