HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:

- quote -

I think you'd run into real problems making a meaningful comparison if
you try to get down to the level of comparing industries. The economic
policies of Clinton, Carter and LBJ were very different, but then so
were the economic conditions they faced. So were the geopolitical
situations. Likewise for George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush.

For example, the US Auto industry did well for a number of years under
Clinton compared to GHW Bush, but I'd say that little of that had to do
with any direct Clinton policies aimed at the auto industry, and was
mostly a factor of the general economic boom of the 90s, improved
management at the Big 3, and the booming demand for profitable SUVs.
Profits are tighter now for US auto manufacturers, but that's true for
most manufacturers.

Obviously you can make some generalization about the difference between
Ds and Rs on tax policy, federal spending on housing, environmental
regulation, but unless you're talking about a relatively tiny industry,
like someone who makes Space Shuttle tiles, it's hard to say that a
President is directly responsible.

And while I'm sure you could find out industries that did better on a
yearly basis from 1977-1980 and 1993-2000 compared to 1981-1992 and
2001-2004, or vice versa, I'm not sure that this would tell you
anything. Partially that's because so many industries rely on capital
investment for long term profitability, and those decisions tend be made
several years before a president takes office.

Likewise, industry-specific presidential policies tend to take years to
implement -- for example, Carter's airline and trucking deregulation.
Then, the long term effects on an industry take even longer to be sorted
out, so that industries tend to show the effects long after the
President is gone.

Even areas like highway construction and defense spending are tough to
attribute to a particular president -- much of the highway and defense
work now is being done with money that was approved in the Clinton
administration. There's no easy way to look at the health of the
highway construction industry and portion out how much is GW Bush and
how much is Clinton.

I'd certainly be interested in seeing some analysis on an industry by
industry basis, but I'm guessing that the correlation to the party of
the President isn't very strong.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:49:34 CST, Greyyy <greyyy[at]yyy.com> wrote:


- quote -

It's just an opinion, but I agree that diversity is usually the best
bet. And I can also see how some might view individual stocks as a
"crap shoot". Of course, short-term everything might be a
"crapshooter". <grin
But my initial question revolved around *industries*. For example,
has aerospace done better under Democrat or Republic regimes? How
about retail sales - under which party have they prospered most? What
about energy? Banking? The "military industrial complex"? Leisure?
etc., etc.

My working thesis is that the general market can and has prospered
under both parties. But when we key in on specific industries, it
varies. Hence my interest in historical performance of the main
industry groups.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

Ed J wrote:
- quote -

I think it's pretty essential that investors are diversified regardless of Bush or
Kerry. The economy for the rest of the decade is probably going to be close to as
volatile as it has been up to this point. Outside influences (oil, bad guys, Asian and
European policies) are probably going to affect the US economy more than the policies of
either Bush or Kerry (or Greenspan) in terms of taxes, spending, regulation, monetary.

My guess is that the difference in spending and taxes for either candidate will sum up
to maybe $200-$300 billion a year, which in the context of the federal budget and total
US economy isn't that big.

I'm guessing that Bush has pushed the limits of government spending about as far as they
can go with his Medicare plan, increases in transportation, defense, domestic security,
etc. He rejected the compromise 2 year extension of his tax cuts because they didn't
extend far enough into the future, which suggests that he's looking for an exit strategy
from further major tax cuts. You'd see differences between what Bush and Kerry would
accomplish in 05-08, for sure, but in the margins and nowhere as extreme as the
differences between GW Bush and Clinton.

Trying to predict specific winning and losing companies is a crapshoot -- the Boeing Air
Force tanker deal is a good example of how billions of dollars can turn on revelations
that no investor could hope to know about.

My gut instinct is that things are just too weird right now to go too far in any
direction, and hedging bets is probably the best bet.

I remember that during the last election season (2000), some outfit
did a study of total stock market returns for a LONG time back.
The found that the market gained quite a bit more during Democratic
administrations than during Republican administrations.

It has held true..... 8-(

--
-------------------------------------------- - Ed J edj22 at attglobal dot net
Do not reply to default 'reply' address. Change to above address minus the
blanks.
-------------------------------------------- -
"HW "Skip" Weldon" <skip5700removethis[at]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kn97g015l73hutg64ifl12tnc9hppks1gq[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:

- quote -

I suspect that bibles and body bags will prosper if the current
administration is re-elected. Not so if otherwise.

The problem from an investor's perspective is to find "pure
plays" in these two areas.

MTW

My opinion is that we can make an interesting case that certain
industries perform better under certain political parties. Of course,
we can't prove it or make promises of future returns, but it is
interesting to consider.

While we must be careful about getting into politics on this
newsgroup, we can discuss WHICH industries might do well under WHICH
party.

So, any suggestions on which industries would do better under a
Democrat regime? Under a Republican regime?


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC