Why don’t more business people and investors vote for a Democrat Presidential Candidate?

Before some scoff at this question, let’s look at some data. We investors and business people are supposed to maximize shareholder and business value are we not? If that is the key goal, would we not want to vote for the party, who on average, increases the value the most? So, we should vote for the Republican candidate for President, as this party has touted they are the party of business and jobs – right?

Well, I hate to burst the bubble of some and surprise even Democrats, but the party who occupies the White House when the stock market performs the best, on average, is when a Democrat is in charge. And, on average, it is not even close.

Per a 2012 study performed by Colin Cieszynski, a Senior Market Analyst for CMC Markets, Canada, when the stock market performance since 1900 is reviewed, there are some surprising results.* Under 734 months of Republican White Houses and 617 months of Democrat White Houses (43 months of President Obama’s term were included), the following results are in evidence:

  • the average monthly rate of return under Democrat leadership is 0.73% per month, while the average monthly rate of return under Republican leadership is 0.38% per month, about half as much as under Democrats.
  • yet, the average risk as measured by monthly standard deviation is less under Democrat leadership, which is the opposite of what you would expect given the above return at 5.22% versus 5.56% under the Republican leadership.

However, let’s not stop there. Under which White Houses, on average, are the most non-farm payroll based jobs created? Again, I hate to burst the bubble of Republicans, but it is under Democrat White Houses. And, as before it is not even close. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics after 1941 and estimates before dating back to 1921, there have been 12 Republican White Houses and going on 12 Democrat White Houses, with one year to go.** With the counter still running on President Obama’s administration, the following results are in evidence:

  • there have been over 82,000,000 jobs created under Democrat White Houses through January, 2016.
  • there have been just under 36,000,000 jobs created under Republican White Houses through January, 2016.
  • ratioing the two jobs created numbers results in a ratio of almost 2.3 to 1 in jobs created under Democrat leadership than under Republican leadership.

I fully recognize the President position gets too much credit and too much blame for the economy. Yet, they do provide headwinds and tailwinds. I also recognize that individual leaders are different under both parties. Under Bill Clinton, more jobs were created than under any other President and he was the second best President behind Republican Calvin Coolidge during the roaring twenties on average monthly return. Ronald Reagan was the third best job creator, but fell to sixth in average monthly return. FDR rated second in jobs created and fifth in average monthly return.

My point is we should be asking questions as to why this is the case, especially since it runs counter to campaign and party rhetoric. My thesis is we tend to invest in the economy more through infrastructure investment under Democrat White Houses. Not only do these investments improve assets or build new ones, they create jobs as well.  It should be noted that both Clinton and Reagan were big on trade agreements, as well, which fueled growth. While his job growth numbers were low since we were at full employment in the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower continued investing in infrastructure building off FDR’s new deal and the stock market performed at the eighth best level on an average monthly return basis.

So, what about President Obama? As of January, 2016, there had been just under 9 million net new jobs (counting the lost jobs due to the recession when he took office), which will likely grow to net 11 million or more by the end of his last term. That would place him in 4th or 5th place in net jobs created since 1921. And, through his first 43 months office as measured in the CMC Markets study, he was in 5th place in average monthly return. I have not seen updated numbers, but he would still have a pretty good ranking, since the stock market has doubled while he has been President.

So, back to my question. If the goal is to make money, then on average the party that is the better enabler is the Democrats based on these economic measures. Please review the attached sources for any questions you might have.

*http://blog.cmcmarkets.com.au/asset-class/companies/what-does-the-us-presidential-election-mean-for-markets/

**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms