The Grand Old Party (GOP) is known for supporting big business. So it pays to elect Republicans to the White House, right? If you analyze the stock market performance under Republican and Democratic presidents, the answer is a resounding NO. Democratic presidents generate average stock market returns in excess of the risk-free rate of 10.69% -- roughly six times the 1.69% earned under Republican administrations.
Investopedia describes the research of Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov who analyzed the value-weighted returns on stocks between 1927 and 1998 under Democratic and Republican presidents. And they found that the excess returns of stocks over the risk-free rate of return -- as measured by the Center for Research into Securities Prices (CRSP) indexes versus three-month Treasury bill rates -- were far higher for Democratic presidents (10.69%) than for Republican ones (1.69%).
Of course, these are just long-term statistics. Under the last Democratic president, stocks rose an annual average of 17.4%. The current Republican White House occupant has presided over an average annual decline of 1.1% -- the S&P 500 was 1,342 when he took over and stands at 1,233 today -- the only president of either party of the last 11 to oversee a decline in stocks.
There are many people who don't care about stock prices when considering a president. For them, these statistics are irrelevant. But for those who enjoy owning stocks that rise in price, this research suggests that Democratic presidents are a better investment.
Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-05-2008 @ 6:59PM
sodapop said...
lol "between 1927 and 1998" - nice, include the Depression and omit Internet bubble burst that occurred during Clinton's admin - and the next 10 years of Republican presidency. FOR THE LOSE.
You might want also study which party controlled the House and Senate. With date points for each switch of control - since Congress generally creates and orchestrates the bills and law - not the president.
9-06-2008 @ 2:28PM
SKris said...
Peter,
When I started reading this site several months ago I read your posts religiously. I have found your opinions to be logical and unique, something that is incredibly rare.
Unfortunately, I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for your opinion ever since you have started posting this irrelevant political garbage. For the record, I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat. The content of the posts are not offensive to me as a voter, but instead as an educated investor who understands that the cause and effect relationship between party affiliation of the president and market performance is doubtful. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
Please stop posting political propaganda if for no other reason than that this is a blog about investing.
9-06-2008 @ 1:41AM
BoboTheClown said...
More partisan drivel from Peter -- even worse, it's recycled drivel. The study was done in 2003. What does Investopedia say about study? "Overall, the small size of the sample (just 18 administrations) brings the results into question. .... The results of the study, while intriguing, remain inconclusive. While the numbers are certainly real, the correlation may be spurious. In their own words, the authors acknowledge that "it might just be the case that we have stumbled upon a variable that tests significantly even when there is actually no underlying relation between the presidency and the stock market.""
9-06-2008 @ 6:20AM
Bruce Wilhite said...
All by himself, without the help of humanity or nature or gods or Congress, the President controls the economy, the weather, the course of war, the whereabouts of Bin Laden, human behavior, and so much more. I can see clearly now why we need a god-king and not an ordinary man. The only thing political parties do is bray about which man shall be king.
9-12-2008 @ 9:26AM
sonnype said...
Unemployment 6 percent.Stock market heading south.Gas 4 dollars a gallon and the ranks of the working poor growing.National debt more than doubled in the last 8 years and government bailling out crocked investment banks.Grocery prices soaring and 10 billion a month spend on a war that was started with lies.Cant wait to hear how the Republicans spin their record to blame the Democrats for this mess.
9-06-2008 @ 8:30AM
intai cheong said...
Stock market performance looking a little better during Democratic presidents is a lie mentioned by Democrats using too little superficial unreliable statistics as always. The truth is that stock market has nothing to do with president and that Republican presidents cut tax to plant a seed to revive economy that Democrats destroyed already, and then when another always immoral Democratic president come along, he takes the credit guilefully the reviving economy from the seed that Republican president planted and destroy again the economy by increasing tax. This cycles keep repeating. Thanks. Intai Cheong,Richmond Hill, GA
9-06-2008 @ 9:47AM
Jack Hester said...
You are such a liberal hack and not worth reading, stop trying to sway trader's opionion's for your own political wants!
9-06-2008 @ 9:48AM
Anon said...
Bill Clinton may have not been responsibble for the stock market (possible more to do with Greenspan than anything else), but Bush is responsible for the worst government budget deficit ever!
I can't believe you people are so blind to this. Hell, I'm a Ron Paul supportor and I don't really like the Democrats, but the current republicans aren't conservatives anymore and are ruining the economy by printing money to fund a useless war. Personally, my argument is its best to have a democratic president and a republican congress so that government pork doesn't get through as fast because the two sides are constantly gridlocked and prevented from interfering with the economy on a grand scale. That, my friends, is why the booms happened in the late 90s.
9-10-2008 @ 5:43PM
Steven Sheehan said...
Readers (on both sides of the issue) may have interest in the original work cited by Mr. Cohan. It is available as free download from SSRN at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=244728
Steve Sheehan
Director of Marketing and Subscriptions
Center for Research in Security Prices
http://www.crsp.uchicago.edu/
10-02-2008 @ 11:32AM
Yasmin said...
Good points, all. A hundred years of aggregate results is meaningless - mostly because whenever the Dark Side is in power, the weather is bad and evil barefoot sand people are stockpiling rocks to throw along with WMD's that can't be found during a normal 8-year term. Everybody knows that dems are bad because Clinton tried to get away with defining sex as a strictly reproductive activity, and worse, when his administration turned over power to the guy who was appointed to his position by his own father's Supreme Court, they committed Federal Crimes by stealing the W's out of the computer keyboards.