Could A Republican Sweep Hurt Stocks?

Beware of the Elephants (Source: Birinyi Associates)

Markets, in general, like elections. And there is a long standing belief on Wall Street that Republicans are good for stocks. So the rising possibility that Republicans could win back majorities in the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate this November has whipped a number of market strategists into a frenzy. Says top strategist Ed Yardeni, “So what do stocks do just before and just after midterm elections and in the third year of the Presidential Cycle? They usually go up, and by quite a lot.” Deutsche Bank strategist Binky Chadha says the stock market has on average risen 13% in the six months after midterm elections, and 17% in the next twelve months. Chadha says the results of midterms on stocks are “eye-popping” (from Fortune):

With that in mind, many investors are gleefully awaiting this year’s midterm elections. The latest Cook Political Report projects that Republicans will gain control of the House and come close to winning back the Senate, pushing Congress into a state of political gridlock (according to Chadha, 70% of midterm elections result in the president losing seats in both chambers).
And gridlock, market experts say, is why midterm elections are good for stocks. The less power a president has, the less likely he is to push an activist agenda, unshackling businesses from the burden of regulatory uncertainty. Or so the theory goes.

This would be particularly welcome news at a time when the stock market has been been rather lackluster, if it were true. In fact, a closer look at the evidence suggests that a Republican win in November might not be as good for stocks as many strategists think. Here’s why:

Market research firm Birinyi Associates went back to 1945 to take a look at how the market reacted to different mid-term elections. What the market research firm found was that, yes, stocks do tend to rise in the months just before and right after midterm elections. But, surprise, surprise, what actually happens in the elections, not just the fact that they are held, does make a difference.

In general, Birinyi found that going back to 1962 stocks jumped nearly 10% in the two months before and three months after midterm elections. But in elections when there was a change in the majority in either the House or the Senate, the market did considerably worse. In the six midterms going back to 1945 where there was a switch in the party in power in Congress stocks rose just 6% in the five months around the election. What’s more, when the majority switched from Democrats to Republicans, the stock market did even worse. Take a look at the chart at the top of the post. When the donkeys became elephants, stocks tended to fall. The market lost 6% when Republicans took power during Truman’s presidency, and 4% when Republicans took over the majority in 2002. The Gringrich-lead 1994 Republican take-over of Washington produced a lackluster 3% stock market return.

So will this happen again? I think it might. A lot of strategists have been explaining past positive midterm results and why Republicans are a good thing for the market by saying that gridlock is good. Markets and companies perform best when Washington gets out of the way. And a do-nothing-Washington might be the best when the economy is good. But at a time when we have lackluster economic growth, and a ballooning budget deficit to deal with, we need all the help we can get, even if that help comes from Washington.

Related Topics: stock market, Wall Street & Markets
  • Latest on Business

    Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

    Facebook, Wall Street Banks Sued Over Pre-IPO Financial Forecasts

    Just days after its controversial IPO, Facebook and its Wall Street bankers have been hit by shareholder lawsuits alleging that the social networking giant and its underwriters concealed the company’s decelerating revenue growth from investors. The lawsuits come amid a growing furor about whether Facebook’s banks selectively disclosed information that gave favored clients an unfair advantage over other investors. Top U.S. regulators have begun examining the IPO, and now the U.S. Senate Banking Committee and other lawmakers want answers from Facebook about issues raised in the offering’s aftermath, according to The Hill newspaper.

    Why Greece Isn't Leaving the Eurozone YetSlate

    Associated Press

    Small Dairies Go Under as Milk Prices Sink Again

    PLAINFIELD, Vt. — The MacLaren brothers are third-generation dairy farmers, but they will likely be the last in their family.

    After working all their lives on the hillside farm in Vermont that their grandfather bought in 1939, rising to milk cows at 3 a.m., even in blizzards and sub-zero temperatures, they decided to call it quits, auctioning off their roughly 200 cows and equipment ranging from stalls and hoof trimmers to tractors and steel pails.

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks, Stephen, but why would the markets do worse under a Republican change? Aren’t the R’s supposed to be pro-biz with those delightful tax cuts, looser regulation (read: none, see pre-recession banking practices), and all those other things that are supposed to drive markets and create zillions of jobs? Then again, the R’s are supposed to be deficit hawks like many are right now as they stall bills that are adding to it temporarily in order to jumpstart the economy… …yet the deficit did increase under Reagan and W. There are many thoughts out there as why markets might NOT always do best under R control. What are YOUR thoughts as to why, Stephen? Or your current / past teammates like John or Barbara? Or your trusted sources? I don’t know why so would you share your insights? Thanks.

  • timoric

    I disagree with the conclusion at the end of this article. “But at a time when we have lackluster economic growth, and a ballooning budget deficit to deal with, we need all the help we can get, even if that help comes from Washington.” I agree with Ronald Reagan the worst thing you can hear is “Hi, I am here from the Government and I am here to help.” See the 500 point drop in 1987 for what happens when Washington does nothing. Basically, in my lifetime up until 2007 the United States enjoyed unparalleled prosperity for 24-25 years. Also, don’t forget, I think a lot of people have, the deficit was coming down significantly after the Bush tax cuts kicked in despite the War and much higher federal spending, 164 billion sure looks good now. I think a Bill Clinton/Newt Gingrich budget like was done in 95-96 would have definitely led to big surpluses, who can argue with that? It was the spending, the Tea Party is as skillful as Obama was in 08 focusing in on that message and the 2010 midterms are a game changer and will hopefully make the President feel the heat so he will see the light. The stock market will go up 400 points the day after the mid-term elections I predict.

  • http://www.fewmets.org/ unclesmrgol

    Hmm. So which party is in the pocket of big business?

blog comments powered by Disqus