Great video and explanation. So after the upcoming presidential election, the economy will go even further down for 2 years before recovering in the following 2 years.
I don't know if I'd go that far. It seems that the median and average return figures for presidential terms do seem to favor the second half of terms when compared to the first half, but (at least since 1929) it's been just as likely to see the first two years of a term outperform the second half (happened in 11 of the 22 scenarios during the time frame used in the video). So as I said in the conclusion as interesting as the theory is it doesn't seem to be consistent or conclusive enough for me to consider building an investing strategy around it. The market may end up falling further for the next two years or so, but it also may not. Only time will tell :)
Check out the Stock Trader's Almanac for an exhaustive analysis of this topic. Well worth the money. On page 130, they discuss the "Presidential Election/Stock Market Cycle - the 186-Year Saga Continues. There are other reasons to buy the book as well - I love the calendar which notes the triple witching days, anniversaries of stock market crashes, and the months that perform the best vs. the worst. I take it all only somewhat seriously - as I do technical trading indicators - but still it is well worth knowing about. It is regularly mentioned on CNBC.
This is an interesting theory. I had never heard of it before. Great video as always!
Glad you enjoyed it :)
Great explanation. I never heard of this until now.
Glad it was helpful!
Awesome video, super informative as always. Thank you Daniel!
Glad you liked it!
Thanks
Nice one
Thanks!
What about a dip leading up to Nov 4th and rebound by January? Is that consistent?
Great video and explanation. So after the upcoming presidential election, the economy will go even further down for 2 years before recovering in the following 2 years.
I don't know if I'd go that far. It seems that the median and average return figures for presidential terms do seem to favor the second half of terms when compared to the first half, but (at least since 1929) it's been just as likely to see the first two years of a term outperform the second half (happened in 11 of the 22 scenarios during the time frame used in the video).
So as I said in the conclusion as interesting as the theory is it doesn't seem to be consistent or conclusive enough for me to consider building an investing strategy around it. The market may end up falling further for the next two years or so, but it also may not. Only time will tell :)
This is very interesting
Glad you found it interesting :)
Check out the Stock Trader's Almanac for an exhaustive analysis of this topic. Well worth the money. On page 130, they discuss the "Presidential Election/Stock Market Cycle - the 186-Year Saga Continues. There are other reasons to buy the book as well - I love the calendar which notes the triple witching days, anniversaries of stock market crashes, and the months that perform the best vs. the worst. I take it all only somewhat seriously - as I do technical trading indicators - but still it is well worth knowing about. It is regularly mentioned on CNBC.
Please ask but don't beg for likes and comments, Jesus. otherwise great video thank you.