Maryland Conservatarian

OK, I was going to avoid anymore postings today until I saw this bit of headline inanity: Dow Reaches New High on Election Results

Instinctively considered inane because, no matter your political persuasion, most of us probably do not consider the congressional Dems as a group prone to buoy investor confidences. But here’s why the elections are portrayed as a positive for investors:

“…investors grew more confident that a huge victory by Democrats in congressional elections would result in gridlock and keep lawmakers out of the way of business interests.”

I don’t discount such reasoning – the idea of governmental gridlock causes me absolutely no angst and is a phenom I’d like to see more of. And I hope President Bush dedicates his final two years in office to totally thwarting the Democratic vision – whenever and whatever enunciated.

But somehow I just don’t think AP writer Tim Paradis has the requisite underlying market sophistication to make such a sweeping observation. Here’s more:

“…an undecided Senate race in Virginia had during early trading unnerved investors who dislike such uncertainty. Stocks showed gains after the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.”

I’m sorry but that just strikes me as wishful thinking disguised as market analysis. I just can’t picture too many money managers - controlling sums sufficient to move market averages – were sitting on piles of cash just waiting for Donald Rumsfeld to leave town. I wonder how many stockholders’ reports for investment entities will reflect rummy’s departure as a valid new-found cause for optimism.

UPDATE: Pillage's comment is spot-on: Democrats' Victory Halts Stocks' Streak
(and, for the record, I think most of this instant market analysis is crap)