[manaboutown]

Inflation today from what I read is currently running the highest in about 40 years. Pretty scary to me!

My curiosity caused me to look back over the last ten years at how much inflation we have actually experienced. This is what I found. I thought it had been a little lower.

"Core inflation averaged 2.11% per year between 2012 and 2022 (vs all-CPI inflation of 1.96%), for an inflation total of 20.67%. When using the core inflation measurement, $1 in 2012 is equivalent in buying power to $1.21 in 2022, a difference of $0.21."

$1 in 2012 → 2022 | Inflation Calculator

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Please provide supporting data since you are presenting this as fact.

Here are some facts:

In 2016, Charles Schwab analyzed market data going back to 1950 and found that, in general, the third year of the presidency overlapped with the strongest market gains. The S&P 500, a fairly broad index of stocks, exhibited the following average returns in each year of the presidential cycle:

Year after the election: +6.5%
Second-year: +7.0%
Third-year: +16.4%
Fourth-year: +6.6%

Overall, the predictive power of the presidential election cycle theory has been mixed. While average market returns in years one and two have been slightly sluggish overall, the direction of stock prices hasn’t been consistent from one cycle to the next. The bullish trend in year three has proven more reliable, with average gains far exceeding those of other years. What’s more, roughly 90% of all cycles since 1950 experienced a market gain in the year after the midterm elections.

OK, I will start with.....there are NO ABSOLUTE facts about anything. The closest is mathematics and even that subject changes and has gray areas. So, if there are no facts then a link would be only as good as the expert/opinion of the author of the link. So, basically, I don't memorize links or EVER even TRY to look one up to prove something that I say. Anyway, EVEN if I did take the time to prove it, then at least 1/2 of the posters would poo-poo it and say "no-way that does NOT prove anything because my (meaning their) mind is totally hardened on the subject....
........Nevertheless, I will say that what I posted was to the BEST of my knowledge and memory. It is MORE than just my opinion yet less than a mathematical truth or even a link (that was 100% factual, which would be impossible). 15 years ago I began investing. I have made over 100 purchases and sales of ETFs and individual stocks, probably more. That is probably about average for a TV Lander. I get 90% of ALL of my stock info from the 2 daily Fast $ shows. About 7 years ago I heard the election year theory of market value timing (and note that it is stronger during the 4-year cycle of a Presidential election. I then heard it repeated about 5 years ago, which, to me, was a confirming 2nd time. Incidentally,
there is another interesting market timing and more long-term and EVEN likely to be more controversial to TV Landers - namely, that the stock market, normally, has increased MORE during one party's time in office vs the other. And guess which is which?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

OK, I will start with.....there are NO ABSOLUTE facts about anything. The closest is mathematics and even that subject changes and has gray areas. So, if there are no facts then a link would be only as good as the expert/opinion of the author of the link. So, basically, I don't memorize links or EVER even TRY to look one up to prove something that I say. Anyway, EVEN if I did take the time to prove it, then at least 1/2 of the posters would poo-poo it and say "no-way that does NOT prove anything because my (meaning their) mind is totally hardened on the subject....
........Nevertheless, I will say that what I posted was to the BEST of my knowledge and memory. It is MORE than just my opinion yet less than a mathematical truth or even a link (that was 100% factual, which would be impossible). 15 years ago I began investing. I have made over 100 purchases and sales of ETFs and individual stocks, probably more. That is probably about average for a TV Lander. I get 90% of ALL of my stock info from the 2 daily Fast $ shows. About 7 years ago I heard the election year theory of market value timing (and note that it is stronger during the 4-year cycle of a Presidential election. I then heard it repeated about 5 years ago, which, to me, was a confirming 2nd time. Incidentally,
there is another interesting market timing and more long-term and EVEN likely to be more controversial to TV Landers - namely, that the stock market, normally, has increased MORE during one party's time in office vs the other. And guess which is which?

.......So, to re-cap the election-year timing method, I had it stated and confirmed on Fast $ and I also stated MY opinion for WHY it made sense to ME - that is that both big and small investors prefer the MORE stabilized knowledge that they have after a 4th year Presidential Election when they know who won! So, this IS WAY more than just MY opinion!
........And the last sentence written by the poster that responded to my post said something to the effect that 90% of the time the year after the midterm Election that the market goes up. Which actually proves my point except that I added that the effect is stronger in the year AFTER a Presidential Election. So, typically after the election in early Nov. the market goes up through Xmas, JAN, Feb, and about March then levels off for the summer and then it likely moves up in anticipation of Xmas sales for that non-election year. So, it is likely that the WHOLE year AFTER a Presidential Election that the market it up. But, I don't depend on that. I take my ELECTION YEAR profits in about March and then I re-evaluate around October depending on Xmas retail sales forecasts. .......sorry that this was so long!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Please provide supporting data since you are presenting this as fact.

Here are some facts:

In 2016, Charles Schwab analyzed market data going back to 1950 and found that, in general, the third year of the presidency overlapped with the strongest market gains. The S&P 500, a fairly broad index of stocks, exhibited the following average returns in each year of the presidential cycle:

Year after the election: +6.5%
Second-year: +7.0%
Third-year: +16.4%
Fourth-year: +6.6%

Overall, the predictive power of the presidential election cycle theory has been mixed. While average market returns in years one and two have been slightly sluggish overall, the direction of stock prices hasn’t been consistent from one cycle to the next. The bullish trend in year three has proven more reliable, with average gains far exceeding those of other years. What’s more, roughly 90% of all cycles since 1950 experienced a market gain in the year after the midterm elections.

OK, I put that 3rd-year factual statistics into my slow, small, mind-computer. And I came up with an explanation that satisfied myself. It actually parallels my statements about both BIG and small investors preferring government STABILITY. The more the better for the market. BIG investors have a conservative bent. They want their money to make them more money, BUT at the lowest possible risk. The 3rd year of ANY Presidents term is the year AFTER the midterms. So, what usually (not always) happens is that the party that is opposite to the President takes over that year. This makes the 3 rd year usually (?) the most stable. Things can get done, but RADICAL changes are less likely to happen with a President of one persuasion and a Congress of the other persuasion. So stability makes the stock market go up in that 3rd-year situation. I can buy that!

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I can buy that!

Request was for facts supporting your statement.
Response was theory.

Maybe this will help:

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by nn0wheremann

Perhaps the measure of wealth, Federal Reserve distributional accounts, is wrong. One of the most expensive purchases many people make is education and training. My bachelor’s degree from the University of Missouri cost about $10,000 over four years. My MBA from Southern Illinois cost a similar amount 15 years later. My education is worth, by FASB rules, about $20,000. My Millenial daughters each have educations that cost $80,000. By Financial Accounting Standards Board rules, right out of college their assets were four times that of their Boomer father.

So much for statistics!

Possibly, but you need to convert their education costs downward due to constant dollars. or yours upward to make a realistic comparison. The value of money changes over time.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Kaelo Abu

This reminds me of a golfing buddy who would take several minutes to look at every angle of an upcoming putt, only to miss nearly every time due to poor technique.

A good buddy to make bets with!