NYSE Since Trump

Meathead

Diamond Member
Jan 6, 2012
41,514
15,472
2,250
Prague, Czech Republic
I speaks for itself:

GraphEngine.ashx
 
Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself. Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.

Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
 
Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself. Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.

Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market. The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
So there's that.
 
If you take a closer look at the rise of the stock market you will find that more than 50% of it came from 3 stocks, GS, UNH and CAT. The average investor/retirement fund is not really gaining much at all, and likley are still losing money.
 
...Trump is doing it all by himself. Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went....
In politics you can have it both ways, that w/ Trump the pres has nothing to do w/ the markets but w/ O it does. In real life we have to pick one or the other.
...from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000. Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
That's what we usually hear from someone who not only has never invested, but someone who's just filled w/ pure hatred for stock trades and the all the jobs created.

Folks that work for a living see stock prices as a leading indicator (re: The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for the U.S. Increased | The Conference Board ) so if we're measuring the affect on stocks from presidential policies then we go from election to election. That's where we see the 08 to 16 average annual boost was just over 7% --that's the average for a couple decades before. Since the '16 election to now the Dow's annualized growth has averaged 62%.

62% is better than 7%.
 
...Trump is doing it all by himself. Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went....
In politics you can have it both ways, that w/ Trump the pres has nothing to do w/ the markets but w/ O it does. In real life we have to pick one or the other.
...from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000. Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
That's what we usually hear from someone who not only has never invested, but someone who's just filled w/ pure hatred for stock trades and the all the jobs created.

Folks that work for a living see stock prices as a leading indicator (re: The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for the U.S. Increased | The Conference Board ) so if we're measuring the affect on stocks from presidential policies then we go from election to election. That's where we see the 08 to 16 average annual boost was just over 7% --that's the average for a couple decades before. Since the '16 election to now the Dow's annualized growth has averaged 62%.

62% is better than 7%.

While true, Trump is trying to front load the low hanging fruit of his agenda and that leads to numerous problems. Most importantly for this discussion the percentage of undervalued issues is declining relatively rapidly and we are getting back to a nifty fifty mindset.
 
...the percentage of undervalued issues is declining...
This thing about a stock or a block of stocks being "undervalued" or not --I mean, just who the heck is it that's strutting around ranting about some kind of 'true' value that's supposedly more than the actual price real people in real life are willing to accept?
 
If you take a closer look at the rise of the stock market you will find that more than 50% of it came from 3 stocks, GS, UNH and CAT. The average investor/retirement fund is not really gaining much at all, and likley are still losing money.
That being said.......The S&P 500 and NASDAQ are also at record highs, so that kinda blows your theory
 
If you take a closer look at the rise of the stock market you will find that more than 50% of it came from 3 stocks, GS, UNH and CAT. The average investor/retirement fund is not really gaining much at all, and likley are still losing money.
That being said.......The S&P 500 and NASDAQ are also at record highs, so that kinda blows your theory
That part confused me too...
 
If you take a closer look at the rise of the stock market you will find that more than 50% of it came from 3 stocks, GS, UNH and CAT. The average investor/retirement fund is not really gaining much at all, and likley are still losing money.
That being said.......The S&P 500 and NASDAQ are also at record highs, so that kinda blows your theory

Unless of course the same holds true for them, but that is a bit over your head I guess.
 
If you take a closer look at the rise of the stock market you will find that more than 50% of it came from 3 stocks, GS, UNH and CAT. The average investor/retirement fund is not really gaining much at all, and likley are still losing money.
That being said.......The S&P 500 and NASDAQ are also at record highs, so that kinda blows your theory

Unless of course the same holds true for them, but that is a bit over your head I guess.
Or, you just don't know what you're talking about.
 
...Trump is doing it all by himself. Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went....
In politics you can have it both ways, that w/ Trump the pres has nothing to do w/ the markets but w/ O it does. In real life we have to pick one or the other.
...from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000. Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
That's what we usually hear from someone who not only has never invested, but someone who's just filled w/ pure hatred for stock trades and the all the jobs created.

Folks that work for a living see stock prices as a leading indicator (re: The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for the U.S. Increased | The Conference Board ) so if we're measuring the affect on stocks from presidential policies then we go from election to election. That's where we see the 08 to 16 average annual boost was just over 7% --that's the average for a couple decades before. Since the '16 election to now the Dow's annualized growth has averaged 62%.

62% is better than 7%.
People who work for a living have been sold a bill of goods that the stock market going up is good for them, when in reality it helps the average joe very little.

Oh, and 2922 > 106
 
There are far fewer stocks that are worth 100% or more dead than alive than there were on election day or a share price less than half of the prices of tangible Assets. There are also fewer issues with a PEG>1 for the same period. Both terms have defined undervalued issues since before Benjamin Graham started writing articles for "The Magazine of Wall Street" in 1915.
 
Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself. Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.

Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market. The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
So there's that.

keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.

fredgraph.png


That you're confused about what the Prime Rate means?
 
Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself. Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.

Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market. The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
So there's that.

keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.

fredgraph.png


That you're confused about what the Prime Rate means?
Yeah, I meant the Fed Fund Rate....my bad
 
Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself. Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.

Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market. The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
So there's that.

keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.

fredgraph.png


That you're confused about what the Prime Rate means?
Yeah, I meant the Fed Fund Rate....my bad

fredgraph.png


Yup.
 
Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself. Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.

Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market. The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
So there's that.
so trump is responsible for all the good earnings results from most companies ? wow can't wait to see him grow the markets in the same % as Obama did
 
Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself. Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.

Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market. The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
So there's that.
so trump is responsible for all the good earnings results from most companies ? wow can't wait to see him grow the markets in the same % as Obama did
Please show me where I said that.
 
Yeah, I guess Trump is doing it all by himself. Never mind the fact that under Obama the stock market went from 7,000 when he took office, to over 19,000, and the market was flirting with topping over 20,000.

Trump inherited a good market, Obama didn't.
Actually, if you take away the Central Banks infusing trillions over the 8 years and keeping the Prime Rate at near 0, well, you know what I'm saying.
Having said that, yes, Trump is probably the leading reason for the rise in the market. The market has a perception as to what his policies are going to be and it likes it......a lot.
So there's that.
so trump is responsible for all the good earnings results from most companies ? wow can't wait to see him grow the markets in the same % as Obama did
Please show me where I said that.
perhaps you didn't but republicans in general lay the success of our markets at trumps door
 
...the stock market going up is good for them, when in reality it helps the average joe very little...
You're probably right about the 'Average Joe' not being helped --directly that is-- because the average Ameircan is not employed (U.S. population 325,268,000 vs. total employment 152,081,000 --re bls.gov, census.gov) and is supported by the minority that does work. Of the total who do work, most are employed by corporations (irs.gov) --jobs that would never have come into being had there not been a stock markets to make owning the corporations possible.

So indirectly the "Average Joe" is very much dependent upon the access Americans have to markets where corporate shares are traded.
 

Forum List

Back
Top