Client Login
A common question, especially during election years, is about the impact of presidential elections on the stock market. Today on The Field Guide Podcast, Brian Colvert, CFP® is addressing this question and looking back at historical data to identify trends and patterns to help you make informed investment decisions.
Listen now!
iTunes | Spotify | iHeartRadio | Amazon Music
Historical Insights from Presidential Elections
When examining stock market behavior following presidential elections, it is clear that the market often reacts positively or remains muted in the months following an election. This trend can be attributed to the market’s aversion to uncertainty. The months leading up to an election are filled with speculation, posturing from candidates, and uncertainty about future policies. This uncertainty leads to market fluctuations. However, once the election results are in, the market finds some level of certainty, which often leads to stabilization and sometimes optimism about the future.
1944: Franklin D. Roosevelt
During Franklin D. Roosevelt’s election in 1944, the markets were mostly muted. This reaction was largely due to the ongoing World War II, which overshadowed electoral impacts.
1948: Harry Truman
In 1948, the markets were initially negative due to the unexpected victory of Harry Truman. However, they quickly turned positive and stabilized.
1952 and 1956: Dwight D. Eisenhower
When Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and re-elected in 1956, the markets responded positively, reflecting optimism in his leadership and policies.
1960: John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy’s election in 1960 initially caused some market concerns, but these soon gave way to positive movement as his policies became clearer.
1964: Lyndon B. Johnson
The market reacted positively to Lyndon B. Johnson’s election in 1964, continuing the trend of post-election optimism.
1968 and 1972: Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon’s elections in 1968 and 1972 saw mixed stock market reactions. In 1968, the uncertainty of the socio-economic environment led to muted responses. In 1972, the markets responded positively, but this was soon overshadowed by the oil crisis.
1976: Jimmy Carter
The election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 was met with uncertainty and mixed market reactions.
1980 and 1984: Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan’s elections in 1980 and 1984 brought market gains due to anticipated tax cuts and economic optimism.
1988: George H. W. Bush
The markets reacted positively to George H. W. Bush’s election in 1988, continuing the trend of optimism with new leadership.
1992 and 1996: Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton’s elections in 1992 and 1996 both resulted in positive market movements, reflecting confidence in his economic policies.
2000 and 2004: George W. Bush
George W. Bush’s election in 2000 initially saw stock market declines due to the dot-com bubble burst. However, his re-election in 2004 saw market gains as confidence was restored.
2008 and 2012: Barack Obama
Barack Obama’s election in 2008 led to market declines, largely due to the ongoing financial crisis. However, his re-election in 2012 saw positive market reactions as the economy began to recover.
2016: Donald Trump
The 2016 election of Donald Trump initially caused market drops, but these quickly turned into rallies as his policies were anticipated to be pro-business.
2020: Joe Biden
Joe Biden’s election in 2020 saw the markets move up as well. This positive reaction was part of a broader trend where the markets tend to stabilize and sometimes rally after the uncertainty of an election is resolved.
Economic Context Over Candidate
What becomes apparent from these historical trends is that the underlying economic conditions during an election year often outweigh the individual characteristics or promises of the candidates. For example, the market’s response to Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II was more about the global conflict than his re-election. Similarly, the dot-com bubble had a more significant impact on the markets during George W. Bush’s first election than his actual policies.
Short-Term vs. Long-Term Market Movements
While short-term market movements are influenced by the election results, long-term trends are dictated by broader economic conditions. In the short term, the market tends to settle once election uncertainty is resolved. However, for long-term investors, it’s essential to focus on the overall economic health and underlying trends rather than the immediate aftermath of an election.
What This Means for Investors
As an investor, it’s crucial to maintain a long-term perspective. Short-term fluctuations around election times are normal, but they shouldn’t drive your investment strategy. Instead, focus on the fundamentals of your portfolio and the broader economic trends. It’s also beneficial to seek professional guidance with a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ to navigate these uncertain times and align your investment strategy with your long-term financial goals.
In Conclusion
In conclusion, while presidential elections can create short-term stock market volatility, history shows us that markets tend to stabilize and often move positively once the uncertainty is resolved. The key takeaway for investors is to maintain a long-term perspective and focus on the underlying economic trends rather than short-term political changes.
If you want personalized guidance, Bonfire Financial is here to help you navigate these times and ensure your financial plan is robust and aligned with your goals.
