Continue reading GOP's Gain Could Be First Solar's Loss, Warns JPMorgan

GOP's Gain Could Be First Solar's Loss, Warns JPMorgan originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading Penn National Gaming (PENN) rises after Ohio casino vote

Penn National Gaming (PENN) rises after Ohio casino vote originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

This got me to thinking about a possible explanation. There's nothing so fun as a good conspiracy theory. What if the Treasury was using its money to help prop up the market in the days preceding the election? My mind then leapt to a possible rationale: Perhaps it reasoned that since the collapse in the markets had helped Obama, a rise in stock prices would work to the advantage of McCain. Aha! It would certainly have looked better for the current administration if it could have been succeeded by another Republican in the Oval Office. If that was the intent, it didn't work too well.

Of course, just as there is no evidence that economic statistics -- or the election -- have anything to do with the market moving one way or the other, so it is difficult for me to find any evidence that the Treasury was funneling cash into the markets to prop it up. Oh well.

In all seriousness, I believe there is a fundamental lack of transparency if there is no credible basis on which to explain why the market moves every day. If the big buyers and sellers of stocks publicly disclosed their moves, then it might be feasible to explain them.

That does not seem to be on the horizon, though. So people will continue making their illogical explanations for those daily price swings.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Why did the market rise before the election and fall after? Your guess is as good as mine originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:17:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading My latest big bet: Doughnuts on Obama

My latest big bet: Doughnuts on Obama originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:27:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Earlier this month I posted that John McCain may have made a mistake in selecting Sarah Palin. Now it turns out that the National Review agrees with me.

Katherine Parker argues that while Palin has a pleasant personality, she is "out of her league." Parker believes that her interviews with Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and Sean Hannity reveal a candidate who probably could not handle the job of president if she were required to take it.

Or as Parker wrote, "it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion."

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

One more time: Should John McCain let Sarah Palin go? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading Wall Street to Iowa Caucuses: You ain't got a clue

Wall Street to Iowa Caucuses: You ain't got a clue originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:52:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The Wall Street Journal's "Ahead of the Tape" column looks at (subscription required) one of the age-old market-timing indicators: the election year.

Conventional wisdom holds that election years are a good time to buy stocks because incumbents hoping to hold on to power, for themselves or their party's successor, will try to win voters' favor with fun things like tax cuts and spending to give the economy an upward jolt.

Conversely, politicians usually save things like tax hikes for their first two years in office, hoping we'll forget about it by the time election year rolls around.

The Journal argues that the subprime meltdown and general housing turmoil could make the election indicator less reliable this year. "Investors should also keep in mind the one time in the last half century the presidential cycle didn't work: 2000, when the dot-com stock bubble imploded. No amount of fiscal stimulus could stave off that bear market. It remains to be seen if Washington's pump-priming machine will work this time around."

Markets are too complex to use any one indicator -- no matter how impressive its past performance -- to try to jump in and out of the market. It's been said many times before, but most investors should just buy and hold and pay no attention to the election year indicator, the Super Bowl indicator, or anything else.

Are election years a good time to buy stocks? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:38:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Continue reading Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney: Oh, the gut wrenching horror of it

Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney: Oh, the gut wrenching horror of it originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

What does the coming year hold for the economy? BloggingStocks' Peter Cohan considers five issues that will factor heavily in 2008.

2008 is an election year in the U.S., which means that nothing significant is likely to change in terms of government policy. The one wild card in that assessment is whether the Bush administration will go to war in Iran - or take some other radical policy move -- since it knows it has very little time left.

Assuming nothing significant changes, the biggest economic story of 2008 is likely to be the repercussions from the deepened collapse of the housing market and all the credit markets that plunge in its wake. There are no firewalls in place to keep the drop in CDO, MBS, and SIV values from spreading to the entire global financial system.

The question is whether the U.S. policymakers will be able to do anything effective to stop the damage.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

2008 outlook: Factoring in the policymakers originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:32:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Over the weekend there was a referendum in Venezuela that would have scrapped constitutional the term limits for president Hugo Chavez. He has been president of Venezuela since 1998 and constitutional term limits will not allow him to run again in for reelection in 2012. The left- leaning Chavez has been following in the steps of Fidel Castro and turning Venezuela into a communist state. He has enacted emergency powers, nationalized oil infrastructure, expelled foreign missionaries and allowed crime to run rampant. In order for him to constitutionally stay in office though he needed to get rid of the presidential term limits. That referendum this weekend failed, which is good news for democracy.

Venezuela is the forth largest oil exporter to America after Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. About one half of its 2.3 million exported barrels a day come to the US representing about 9% of all US oil imports. Like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Chavez likes to talk and can move oil prices higher with off handed remarks and his railing against US foreign policies.

The Venezuelan people led by Chavez have headed down the road to socialism and almost a Cuban style dictatorship. While by no means the end of the story, this referendum is a win for democracy and should help the long term stability in the region which is important for US oil prices. Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) and ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) have both been had investments in the country in past years.

Kevin Kersten is an Options Analyst with InvestorsObserver.com. Disclosure note: Mr. Kersten owns and or controls a diversified portfolio of long and short positions that may include holdings in companies he writes about.

Chavez referendum fails -- good news for oil originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Facebook, ABC Networks, team up for political education originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Venture capitalists betting on Democrats? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:39:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The official election is more than a year away; but the Democratic party is trouncing the Republics in the CEO money primary. According to Bloomberg News, some of George W. Bush's top 2004 fund-raisers, are now helping Democrats running for president.

Among the 60 executives writing checks to Democrats such as Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are these formerly pro-Bush CEOs:

• Morgan Stanley's (NYSE: MS) CEO John Mack, a Bush Ranger, held a fund-raiser for Clinton in July. He wrote to his executives "I personally believe that [the best] person [running for president in 2008] is Hillary Clinton."
• Yahoo Inc.'s (NASDAQ: YHOO) former CEO Terry Semel gave $2,000 to Bush in 2004 and $50,000 to the Republican National Committee. Semel has given the maximum, $4,600, to Clinton and $2,300 to Obama.
• News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) CEO Rupert Murdoch, who donated $25,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2004, has given Clinton $2,300.

Continue reading Democrats winning 2008 CEO money primary

Democrats winning 2008 CEO money primary originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Diebold (DBD) unit elects to stay originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

There's something about Barack Obama that Wall Street likes. He raised more money in the most recent quarter than candidates in either party and according to the New York Times DealBook, "Wall Street money had something to do with it." Obama raised money from investment bankers and hedge fund managers and the President of Lehman Brothers.

For whatever reason, Senator Clinton has been less successful in raising money from Wall Street-types. But still this raises an interesting question: Why is a Democrat like Obama cashing in on Wall Street instead of Bain Capital founder Mitt Romney?

Here's one explanation: According to a piece in the Wall Street Journal, private equity firms are giving more to Republicans, "a shift from past fund-raising patterns as Democrats view the industry as a source of new taxes." And Romney is leading all candidates with fund raising among private equity firms.

My explanation: Private equity firms and traditional investment firms like Goldman Sachs are competing, and favorable tax treatment for private equity puts other firms at a competitive disadvantage. How can you compete when you're paying twice as much in taxes?

Wall Street lines up behind Obama originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

This week's Darwin Award goes to... Diebold! originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:32:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

What impact will last Tuesday's election results have on the US economy? Not much. With the economy heading south -- led by a deflating housing market -- there is little that Congress will be able to do to help. But history suggests that the economy would be better off with a Democrat as the victor of the just begun 2008 presidential race.

After my posts last week on the relatively weak performance of the Bush stock market and the investment implications of nominating Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, several radio stations contacted me for my views on how a Democratic Congress would influence the economy. To prepare for these interviews, I've updated an analysis produced two years ago by Forbes -- not a liberal magazine -- which I used during a TV appearance on Wall $treet Week in July 2004. And I've tried to analyze the current forces likely to drive politics in the next two years along with interviews regarding the Democratic agenda.

Although Democrats will control Congress, they lack sufficient power for a Democratic agenda to take hold now. If the Democrats propose legislation which he doesn't like, Bush can veto it and Congress might not muster the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto. Moreover, with Bush trying to salvage his legacy and politicians from both sides of the aisle preparing for 2008 presidential runs, there is little -- beyond a possible increase in the minimum wage -- that is likely to change. Finally, GDP growth has been slowing throughout 2006, from 5.6% to 2.6% to 1.6% between the first and third quarters. This slowing trend will likely continue -- overpowering any policy initiatives that might emerge from Washington.

To put the current situation in a broader historical context, an analysis of post-war presidents and prosperity suggests that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans. How so?

Continue reading Little impact from this election, but economy fares better with Democrats in White House

Little impact from this election, but economy fares better with Democrats in White House originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:25:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Cramer: Democrats have you down? Buy Google and Apple originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:31:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

XOM shares set a new high as Alaska voters reject North Slope tax originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:36:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The mid-term elections on Nov. 7 are now less than a week away. Polls indicate that Democrats are coming on strong. In fact, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released today found that 52% of voters hope Democrats will control Congress vs. 37% who root for Republicans.

Looks like we may be in for a bout of governmental gridlock -- when opposing parties control the executive and legislative branches. Traditionally, investors cheer at this prospect (indeed, that may be one reason the market has fared so well in the past month). The theory is that when there is gridlock, the Federal government isn't able to get that much done and investors don't have to worry about pesky issues like healthcare reform, tax increases or major policy shifts of any kind.

That's the theory anyway. But it doesn't quite pass the smell test, if you ask me. Is it really the best thing for our country, economy and stock market at this point in time to have an ineffectual Federal branch? I don't think so...

Continue reading The elections: Why gridlock could hit stocks

The elections: Why gridlock could hit stocks originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.