« Nope, No Bias Here... | Main | Supreme Court Rejects Appeal of Case Involving Experimental Drugs »

Financial Advisers' Biggest Concern: A Democrat in the White House

A Brinker Capital poll of 236 financial advisers shows that their biggest worry about the economy and investment is not a terrorist attack or global unrest but a Democrat in the White House. From Investment News:

The fourth-quarter edition of the Brinker Barometer, which polled 236 advisers in December, found that 22% indicated that a "Democrat in the White House" worried them more than all other economic or geopolitical concerns.

Rounding out the list of concerns was "global unrest" (15%), "U.S. economic growth" (15%), "a terrorist attack" (13%) and "a recession" (13%).

When asked what their greatest tax concern would be under a Democratic administration, 81% of advisers cited a potential increase in the capital gains tax, an income tax increase and heavier taxes on dividends.

"[Departing from] the Bush administration's approach to taxation will have a large impact on advisers and their clients," said John E. Coyne, president of Berwyn, Pa.-based Brinker Capital, which manages $9.4 billion in assets. "When taxes begin to erode returns, equities remain less attractive."

The results jibe with a poll that Brinker conducted last summer in which 60% of advisers said that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., would be the worst choice in terms of the economy and investing.

The Democrats are probably glad that the financial advisers are afraid of them. As far as Hillary, Edwards, and Barack are concerned, those who make money from stocks are the very people they want to soak on "behalf" of the middle class and in the name of "fairness."

Hat tip: Freepers


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/26975.

Comments (36)

My fear is that the Democra... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

My fear is that the Democrat in the White House will have cankles.

Yeah, that would make sense... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Yeah, that would make sense that this Dem in particular would want to beat the crap out of free enterprise in the name of "fairness"(special interest groups). After all, she has found other ways to gain (funnel) profits for very "personal" reasons. Someone needs to post that "teary-eyed" Hillary video here. Maybe they have and I just haven't seen it.

Doesn't make any sense. The... (Below threshold)

Doesn't make any sense. The traditional concerns during the last 100 years were a war with Democrats in the White House, and a recession or depression if Republicans were in.

Jimmy Carter was the only Democrat in modern times to have major economy problems, while inflation plagued Richard Nixon, so he declared wage and price controls, inflation also hampered Ford who started the WIN(Whip Inflation Now)campaign, a bad economy hampered part of the Reagan administration until the economy rebounded, under Bush1 the economy was a major issue in his re-election defeat, economy was strong under most of Clinton's terms, including the growth of the computer industry, Bush2 economy was hit with 9/11 problems, then improved, but is likely headed towards recession due to housing slowdown and high energy prices hurting consumer spending and likely fueling food inflation prices.

Going farther back, Roosevelt was elected four times in response to the Hoover depression. And Kennedy won a narrow election largely due to concerns with the 1950's Eisenhower economic slowdown and recession.

Be careful Paul. You know w... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Be careful Paul. You know what happens when you hit them with the actual facts.

paul, it makes perfect sens... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

paul, it makes perfect sense to me. if a democrat were elected to president, i would be worried about:

rising taxes (not just income taxes, but also fees, which are a hidden tax)

increased spending on things the government really shouldn't be spending money on.

increased regulations and regulatory costs to businesses. these get passed on to the customer in the form of higher prices. if the company stays in business.

any one of these 3 is reason enough to worry about a democrat in congress. the trifecta is enough to give me nightmares. and that's just on the economic side of the house. doesn't even begin on issues like foreign policy, national security, illegal immigration, the role of government, etc.

while there have been democrats i have been willing to vote for, none of the 3 top candidates for president fromt he democrats are in that list. in fact, as the party further slides to the left, it becomes harder and harder for me not to fear for future.

Doesn't make any sens... (Below threshold)

Doesn't make any sense.

Paul, that sentence should have been at the end of your comment.

Allow me to clarify a few things for you.

1) Democrats this election season have made it abundantly clear that they will roll back the Bush tax cuts. This is what so worries the financial advisors.
2) The Bush tax cuts saved a faltering economy that was already in trouble after the 2000 dot com bubble burst. Then 9/11 created more problems. It is the Bush tax cuts that energized the economy.
3) Gerald Ford had an inflation problem because of poor Federal Reserve monetary policy and the first Arab oil embargo
4) Jimmy Carter had more than just a major economy problem. He halted grain sales to the Soviet Union, tossed the Shah of Iran under the bus,contended with gas lines at domestic filling stations that stretched for miles, continued a Fed policy that saw the highest inflation and interest rates in recent memory and refused to deal assertively with the Iranian kidnappers. Oh, but he did make Ted Koppel's career.
5) Ronald Reagan reversed Fed policy, restricted the money supply and choked off inflation. (Which, BTW, caused a brief recession but accomplished its goal) Then he lowered income and capital gains tax rates to almost historic lows. The Dow Jones Industrial average was at 963 then.
6) Bush 1 lost the reelection because he lied about not raising taxes.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

7) Clinton enjoyed a wildly successful economy while what party controlled both houses of Congress from 1994-2000?

I don't know that I see Hil... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

I don't know that I see Hillary Clinton's economic prospects to be the worse of the Democrats - Obama seems to be completely clueless about economic matters and John Edwards an even more dangerous demagogue. The Clinton's have ties to people with some economic sense, the main danger about Hillary is that she might actually get some of those many policies adopted that she has said we can't afford.

The difference, Paul, is that the Republicans today do not have as a platform explicit policies that will reduce economic growth and the Democrats do. The financial markets understand this. Comparisons going back more than three decades are invalid as - other than Lyndon Johnson's massive expansion of government spending - neither party is advocating the same economic policies as they did three decades ago. Certainly JFK's economic policies would put him in the Republican party today - not the Democrat.

Certainly citing to FDR as a better steward is also invalid, as most economists agree today that FDR's policies actually extended the length of the Depression in economic terms.

While Bill Clinton was elected on a campaign against the supposed bad management of the economy by Bush Sr., in fact the rather mild recession that was pointed to by the Clinton campaign was well over by the time Bill Clinton was in office. Further, there had been several months of strong economic growth by the time he was inaugurated, and nearly a year before the Clinton administration's first budget was adopted.

More to the point, Bill Clinton largely followed the economic policies of the Bush Sr. administration especially with respect to Federal Reserve appointments e.g., Greenspan.

So claiming that Bill Clinton's economic policies were superior to Bush Sr.'s is just flat out false.

That's true, Hugh, on avera... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

That's true, Hugh, on average the worse economic performance historically in the US is when we have Democratic Congress and Democratic White House.

facts, jfo?the eco... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

facts, jfo?

the economy was strong during the clinton years because of the high tech bubble. the last recession started in the clinton years, and ended after bush got the tax cut stimulus passed. don't believe me? go look at the economic data.

the economy under bush 1? the cyclic recession that hit was actually the mildest in modern times. what really cost bush the election were 2 things: breaking his no new taxes pledge, and the ross perot.

kennedy won because of charisma and the daly machine in chicago voting all the dead people.

as for FDR, did you know that none of the economic packages he tried had significant? there are even some indications that they had the opposite effect by limiting the market's ability to respond. what really pulled the US out of the depression was the build up to WW2.

don't get me wrong, with the exception of carter, each of the democratic presidents did some things that i liked. and each of the republican presidents did things i did not like. but overall, their economic policies are leftest and/or populist. neither one works, and that's why real financial people don't like democrats in office.

Paul, your comments make se... (Below threshold)

Paul, your comments make sense, but lack historical/real world perspective. Specifically, pretty much every Democrat to hold the Presidency before Carter was well to the right of the current crop of liberals running in 2008 (in one way or another - yes, even Roosevelt actually wanted to defend the country, even if he wanted it to be a nanny country to defend), and THAT is the bunch that is being evaluated and judged by the polled group. Kennedy enacted large tax cuts to resurrect a struggling economy. How many of this crop would do that? Indeed, they are proposing massive, historically massive, tax INCREASES, particularly on those whose investments grow the economy (hint: it's not the bottom 20 or even 60% of the food chain), which they claim will somehow stimulate the economy. The polled group knows that you cannot grow the economy by further 'lowering' taxes on those that pay none (after credits) or those that pay relatively little and hoping the bit more they have will spur the economy through their spending (hey great, your tax bracket went down Mr. $45,000/year, but guess what? your employer just cut your job because HIS tax bracket went up and now he can make out better by putting his money into the bank instead of his business!). You need to recognize that this group is about as far left of Kennedy as Kennedy was left of McCain and Rudy (Obama and Hillary both have done nothing but travel the country asking what the country can do for them - very Kennedy-like, eh?).

Also, your summary of recent presidents completely ignores their tax strategy and how that impacted the economy. The economy under Reagan didn't just 'rebound' on its own, Bush I's tax increases weren't isolated from a slowing economy, the most impressive surge in the Clinton economy came AFTER he cut the taxes that he said he raised too much, and the economy didn't just 'improve' under Bush II after 9/11, it improved dramatically and historically precisely after the tax cuts went into effect.

Yeah, we should learn from history, but we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that today is the same day as yesterday.

Hooson - "Going farther... (Below threshold)
marc:

Hooson - "Going farther back, Roosevelt was elected four times in response to the Hoover depression."

FDR was elected 4 times due to Hoover's depression? Talk about not making sense. At best I'd give you the first two but if you think he was elected on anything but WW II in the last two terms you're revising or not understanding history.

Nothing unusual there.

Well, marc, in 1940 FDR got... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Well, marc, in 1940 FDR got reelected solely because he brazenly lied to the American people about what he was doing to get the US into WWII.

Well, duh............... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Well, duh............

Not surprising that the Rob... (Below threshold)
Phoenix:

Not surprising that the Robber Piggies would fear a Democratic Administration.

They are scared to death of the end of the greatest upward aggregation of wealth in the history of the world to the top 10% of the American Pyramid.

What is amazing is that any here at Wizbang w/ an income below 500K are dimwitted enough to actually think that their economic trailor is actually hitched, for the better, to this kind of egregiously distorted Republican economic machine.

SPQE - "Well, marc, in ... (Below threshold)
marc:

SPQE - "Well, marc, in 1940 FDR got reelected solely because he brazenly lied to the American people about what he was doing to get the US into WWII."

There's some truth to that but it also lays to waste Hooson's nonsense.

Phoenix _ "They are scared to death of the end of the greatest upward aggregation of wealth in the history of the world to the top 10% of the American Pyramid."

So... how many of the 236 financial "experts" polled would you say are in your 10%?

I'd hazard a guess and say 50% or less. Whatever it is it's fairly certain it's not 100%. In that case what would you say that group among those polled are "scared" of?

Ke_future, Democrats would ... (Below threshold)

Ke_future, Democrats would certainly have to really go hog wild on spending to even come close to matching the $4100 tax cost per family for the elective Iraq War since 2003, or the $275 daily million dollar war cost, or the $486.6 billion dollar total war cost, yet Bush vetoed a small tax increase on cigarettes, paid for only by smokers to fund SCHIP. Makes no sense to me. Only small fees and tax increases rate as tax increases to Bush, not $486 billion dollar elective wars.

Spending billions on people living overseas is good, and spend relative pennies for people here is bad?

And Hooson changes the subj... (Below threshold)

And Hooson changes the subject. Way to concede the argument, bud.

Spending billions on ... (Below threshold)

Spending billions on people living overseas is good, and spend relative pennies for people here is bad?

You need to study on this a while, Paul.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf


If that's too much data, then stare at this pie chart and tell us that the United States government is spending "relative pennies" for it's citizens.

http://www.cbpp.org/3-7-03bud.htm


there is some truth in that... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

there is some truth in that criticism, paul, in how much money we are spending.

however, i do not believe it was an elective war. the question in my mind was not 'are we going to war?' it was 'when are we going to war?' and that question was purely based upon studying history and politics. if you really think it was elective, then i think you are either naive, or ignorant.

yeah, bush vetoed schip. and i think he was right to do so. part of the deal with that bill was that it would expand who was eligible, just another step down the path to government health care. which is bad policy.

personally, i would have been happy if bush would have vetoed every bill that had either earmarks or unfunded mandates in it. but he didn't

Hoover's recession? The d... (Below threshold)

Hoover's recession? The depression was just not an American depression. It was a world wide collapse.

Hoover was in office less than a year when the depression hit, hardly time for him to do much of anything.

Blaming Hoover is popular in Democrat circles, but it really isn't the whole truth.

VW

Hooson - "the $4100 tax... (Below threshold)
marc:

Hooson - "the $4100 tax cost per family for the elective Iraq War since 2003"


Shhhhh...... quiet, you're remind all those democrats they voted to authorize that "elective war." And BTW, that WAS a change of subject.

All of your responses to Pa... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

All of your responses to Paul Hooson's rediculous comments are right on the money. The facts don't lie. Paul, you have to quit reading the democratic talking points before rebutting a post. You look foolish. ww

Still, not as foolish as wh... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Still, not as foolish as when he took a header over the bars of that scooter of his.

Rich conservatives are the ... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Rich conservatives are the most annoying special interest group ever. At least Al Sharpton makes us laugh.

Wow, matthew!So, m... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Wow, matthew!

So, more than half of all Americans are 'rich conservatives'!!

That is good news.

Paul H., the Democrats woul... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Paul H., the Democrats would go hog wild. Hillary herself claims that America can't afford all of her policy proposals.

"Rich liberals are the most... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

"Rich liberals are the most hypocritical intest group ever". With liberal supporters like the trolls on this blog (not even counting those at Kos and DUs), no wonder the leading Dem candidates can make up facts (i.e. lie) with a straight face. The main reason that Hillary seems to be in trouble right now because she is not as good a liar as Bill Clinton or Obama. 1/3 of Dem primary voters in NH would vote for Bill again!

Anyway, folks like Paul Hooson is reduced to making up "facts" or rewrite history. That 's why they can support the corrupt modern Dem party. It is the home of the politics of division. Look at how their leading candidates are all appealing to this divisive tactics:
* Hillary: gender politics
* Obama: racial politics
* Edward: class politics.

So again liberals cannot be honest about who they are and what they believe. So they are excited about unusually good liars like Bill Clinton (and the new version Obama with less personal baggage) to spin.

Only in a far left wing fan... (Below threshold)

Only in a far left wing fanatical nut jobs mind like Hooson is killing terrorists "elective."

Only in a far left wing fan... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Only in a far left wing fanatical nut jobs mind like Hooson is killing terrorists "elective."
-------------------------------------
So true! This simple slogan sadly capture the liberal agenda: "killing babies, not terrorists" big government.

"Rich conservatives are ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Rich conservatives are the most annoying special interest group ever."

Wait, matthew, let me fix that for you:

"Rich democrats are the most conniving special interest group ever."

When rich Democrats lock the plantation

According to public record, one of every three members of the Senate and one out of every four members of the House are millionaires. Despite popular stereotypes of Republicans as the party of the rich and Democrats as the party of the working class, the wealthiest member of the Senate (John Kerry of Massachusetts) and the wealthiest member of the House (Jane Harman of California) are both Democrats. Of the top six wealthiest senators, five are Democrats.

There, that's better. I don't even think about Sharpton until someone bring his name up again. Otherwise, you're right about the comedy.

"Not surprising that the... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Not surprising that the Robber Piggies would fear a Democratic Administration."

Not at all surprising that a libbie would replace a financial discussion with juvenile ad hominem attacks.

They are scared to death of the end of the greatest upward aggregation of wealth in the history of the world to the top 10% of the American Pyramid.

And includes rich democrats, btw, which make up most of that pool.

"What is amazing is that any here at Wizbang w/ an income below 500K are dimwitted enough to actually think that their economic trailor is actually hitched, for the better, to this kind of egregiously distorted Republican economic machine."

You got any links or actual sources to make real sense of your vague Metaphor machine?

At least Al Sharpton... (Below threshold)

At least Al Sharpton makes us laugh....only as long as you continue to act and think like Tawana Brawley. When you stop the Reverend Al will just kick you to the curb.

SCSIwuzzy - "Still, not... (Below threshold)
marc:

SCSIwuzzy - "Still, not as foolish as when he took a header over the bars of that scooter of his."

Not as silly as when Hooson attempted to excuse Lee Wards copyright infringement/content theft by claiming the "Gov. made him do it."

Some of us have know Hooson... (Below threshold)

Some of us have know Hooson for years from another website. Has he claimed to have worked for Nixon here yet? He did that at the other site and we figured he was about 9 years old if that were the case. Hooson is a habitual liar. Not that many haven't noticed that by now.

C Indidel - "Some of us... (Below threshold)
marc:

C Indidel - "Some of us have know Hooson for years from another website. Has he claimed to have worked for Nixon here yet?"

Everything but... including having nearly, almost complete "this close" phd in some kinda somethin'.

What is amazing is that ... (Below threshold)

What is amazing is that any here at Wizbang w/ an income below 500K are dimwitted enough to actually think that their economic trailor is actually hitched, for the better, to this kind of egregiously distorted Republican economic machine.

Well, call me dim-witted then. Our household income is above $100k, but barely. If we get a Democrat in the White House, I foresee my taxes going up considerably - with pretty much shit to show for it because we're 'rich', therefore unentitled to the handouts that'll ensue.

I've watched for the last 30 years how the Democrats promise to change things - and when they DO get elected... NOTHING

IMPORTANT

EVER

CHANGES!

If they campaign on relieving the poor - payments and taxes go up and a recession ensues. Then, oddly enough, they have to raise taxes further to pay all those people who've lost their jobs - when the jobs wouldn't be lost in the first place if the taxes hadn't been raised. It's a feedback cycle that takes a year or three - but it's apparent if you pay attention.

And I've come to the conclusion that no Democrat will actually SOLVE a problem - because solving a problem means it's no longer useful for election material.

Carter got in - and things went to hell pretty damn fast. Clinton got into office, and inside of six months had screwed things up to the point where people wouldn't keep a Democratically controlled House and Senate. And if the economy hadn't been inflating with the dot-com bubble, there would have been a good recession, likely a depression by '95.

But thankfully, Clinton let Greenspan worry about the economy and didn't try to micromange it.

I doubt seriously we'd be as lucky again. The economy is indeed too good - there's FAR too much that can be tapped out of it for programs to 'help' people. Taxes are easy to raise and gives the impression you're 'doing something' by 'sticking it to the rich' - but above a certain level you're sticking it to EVERYONE.

And THAT is something the Democrats, in their hunger for control and money, have yet to figure out. A small business owner that has to pay an extra $60k/year in taxes can afford one less employee. But that $60k can pay for three folks to live on Welfare - so you'll have three potential votes for a Democrat who'll promise to raise Welfare payments.

That the Democrats are basically condemning the people on welfare to a $20k/year existance doesn't matter. Or that their schools are going to be so bad their kids will be unlikely to make it out of the Welfare trap. They're locking in votes. THAT'S the important thing.

So - do I believe ANY Democrat when they tell me I'll be better off if they're in control, or they're in office?

No. The evidence is very much to the contrary. They'll promise you a pony, but all you're going to see is a steaming pile of manure, and they'll let you shovel it - and if you shovel enough of it long enough then you might catch sight of the pony they're riding.

But don't hold your breath.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy