Political passions run deep but allowing them to dictate investment decisions can be perilous. A 2020 UBS poll revealed that nearly half (46%) of American investors planned to adjust their portfolios based on the outcome of the presidential election. This highlights a concerning trend: letting political affiliation influence financial strategy. Beyond the inherent difficulties of market timing, throwing political aspects into the mix can lead to even greater risk.
Then there’s the research that exposes a more insidious enemy: confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is the cognitive tendency to seek out, interpret, and favor information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs, while disregarding or downplaying contradictory evidence. In simpler terms, we often see what aligns with our established views, and readily reinforce them while dismissing anything that may challenge them. The thinking is always that if the “other guy” wins, markets will crash.
Even more concerning, party affiliation often colors perceptions of the national economy, with the party in power typically receiving higher approval ratings.
This chart illustrates a persistent trend: we tend to feel good about the economy if our party is in power, and vice versa. So it’s not only a divide in regard to what will happen in the future, we can’t even agree on what is happening right now! The last time public opinion was in agreement regarding the economy was during the Clinton administration, when strategist James Carville famously declared, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Apart from that, there’s always been a clear divide.
What may be surprising is that historically, investing only under a democratic president yielded a much higher return than investing under only republican administrations. The growth of a $10,000 investment in 1950 would have been $405,540 under the Democrats, versus only $77,770 under the Republicans. But here’s the kicker – had you remained invested the whole time, the growth of that $10,000 investment would have come to $3.15 million dollars!
Does the president actually have any sway on this? Or are market cycles the main actor? It’s hard to say that President Bush was at fault for the great recession and housing crisis of 2008, and it was definitely good luck for President Obama, to be in office during the recovery. Markets and business cycles sing to their own tune, and don’t care who is warming the chair in the oval office.
Despite being informed and educated, investors will often still want to base their “thematic investing” decisions, where they invest in a certain sector or theme, on their projected election outcome.
Consider someone who believed President Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” slogan would boost the oil and gas industry. Despite this expectation, the SPDR Fund Energy Select Sector (ticker XLE) plummeted by 48% during his tenure. Similarly, those who assumed natural gas would thrive under President Biden have been disappointed, with most ETFs tracking natural gas being down by about 70% during his time in office.
The takeaway? When it comes to your investment accounts, leave confirmation bias at the login screen. Focus on what truly matters: your financial goals. By employing a well-defined strategy tailored to your individual needs and risk tolerance, you can navigate the markets with greater clarity and avoid the pitfalls of political influence.
