Dow down 900 - their calling it the Obama Effect......

"They're," not "their."

Whine and blame all you want, but the stock market move is clearly due to recent economic reports, not the election. Obama was an 80-90% favorite - him winning was priced into the market before election day.

"They're," not "their."

steve....please stop correcting grammer because #1..who cares #2 i'm to busy to think about it # this is not a 4th grade, phonics class.

But really - it shows how dumb you are if you don't even know the difference b/w THEY'RE (THEY ARE) and THEIR (showing ownership). It is quite simple, really.

tech guy...do you really beleive that??...80-90%?....c'mon....the market is pricing in the Obama Effect

Thanks Obama!

steveF, there you go, wishing me ill again.

"grammer" --> "grammar."

Do pay attention when your words are underlined in red. That's meant as a sign that something is wrong.

Also, correcting spelling has nothing to do with "phonics":

"phonics n plural noun [treated as singular] a method of teaching people to read by correlating sounds with alphabetic symbols."

First things first: learn the alphabetic symbols. Then criticize Obama, who went to Columbia and Harvard.

itd42 whatever....you sound like an All Flash no Substance guy too...if you think that is important....get over it...do you have anything of value..real estate , stocks etc...??

stevejhx...Now down 950...I guess harvard and Columbia don't mean anything....

How about an even 1000 down in honor of Obama!!!....

InTrade.com priced Obama to win at >.9 before the election. fivethirtyeight.com had predictions north of 90% for over a week before the election, and 98.9% the day before. Every reputable poll showed Obama winning by a heavy majority.

Are you honestly saying Obama's *landslide* victory was an upset? You're clearly seeing failed political hopes, not reality.

See while you guys are correcting spelling mistakes i'm out making deals.....don't look at the word, read the sentence...you might learn something...

Im saying Obama's "landslide" win is causing this since his policies cleary dont favor the market, companies and investors....

Its pretty much that simple....

And now the uncertainty in the Senate races is contributing to this...

"Now down 950...I guess harvard and Columbia don't mean anything"

As far as I can tell, George W. is still the president. So all of this is Obama's / Clinton's fault, right? Like 9/11, Katrina, Iraq. Always somebody else's fault.

Not quite true tech guy. The McCain contract hit a high of 54% in early September coming out of the national convention. The S&P index was 1277 on 9/2. As the probability of an Obama win increased the S&P sold off reaching 848 on 10/27. McCain futures bounced in the last week before the election and that is where the brief election day rally came from. Take a look at the charts - it is striking.

The markets are well aware that an Obama presidency will desttroy productive capital and are simply responding appropriately to the prospect of higher taxes and a less favorable climate for productive businesses.

SteveF it is horrendous to see how you spill your venom, and this is not the first time you do. The majority of the country, including many republicans, realize the magnitude of this historical event and are proud to show their happiness about it. did you happen to have your TV on, did you see all these people crying? By the way, this is from the WSJ today: ¨Stocks fell amid signs that large companies and their customers are struggling.¨ I guess that the fact these companies are struggling is Obama´s fault, too. I dislike you so much I am ignoring absolutely every comment coming from you in the future.

jake: You're talking about 2 different things: what the market predicted the week before the election, and what the market predicted months before the election.

My claim: The week before the election, all polls had Obama to win >90%, so markets would move in response to that event ahead of the election. After the election, the market already has this priced in. You don't seem to disagree with this.

You do claim McCain's chances went up when the market rallied. The data doesn't show this. The 2 big S&P 500 rallies were Oct 28 and Nov 4. McCain's chances were flat Oct 27-29, up marginally Oct 30 to Nov 1, then down sharply even as the market continued to do well.

http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/closingPricesForm.jsp?contractId=376101&tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com

As for months before: Yes, S&P and Obama's chances were highly correlated (in opposite directions). You say Obama caused the stock movement, I say the stock movement caused Obama's chances to go through the roof. For you to be right, it must mean that if this year wasn't an election year, the stock market wouldn't have tanked. But... what about that little recession thing? That tiny little problem on Wall Street? That wouldn't have tanked the market in a non-election year?

Clearly the stock market was going down, election year or not, so the blame isn't with Obama. That just solidified his chances.

I think the worse than expected unemployment figures may have something to do with the declines... as skeptical as I am, I doubt Obama can be held accountable for those.

mimi, watching all those liberal hippies and socialists cry crocodile tears and chant, "yes we can!" was both amusing and sad. The vast majority of Obama supporters don't realize how devastating Obama's economic policies will be to this country. The liberal congress is giddy, knowing that it can raise taxes and regulate those "evil" people in finance and business. And you're simply delusional if you think Obama will actually move to the center.

This economy will get worse, and Obama will lose in a landslide in 2012, much like Jimmy Carter, another empty suit who won because of a country's hunger for "change."

wow...yea its all obama's fault. Nothing to do with the bursting of the credit/housing/commodity bubble and toxic balance sheets of the banking system globally.

jake, rufus, steveF, garelj, you would all find this interesting. Economic statistics of the country under Democrats vs. Republicans. After-tax return on capital is higher under Democrats. GDP is 3.9% under Democrats vs. 2.9% under Republicans. 6.96% percentage growth in federal spending under Democrats, vs. 7.57% under Republicans.

If you really still believe Republicans are the party of lower spending, *you're* the ones believing lying politicians. Even if Obama *is* lying (which I doubt) I'd rather be accused of believing Obama's lies than George W. Bush's lies...

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

UD, I guess you just aren't familar with Malkiel's mom's theory where speeches and campaign stops, not corporate profits and GDP, drive the dow.

Just ask yourself would the market be down 9 bills right now if Mccain was voted in? That's all you need to know about the relevance of the question...

Of course its the credit/economic crisis that is causing this...but if anyone believes Obama is "good" for the market then I'll happily be on the other side of a trade from you...his policies by defintion or against the market and nothing is wrong with that if the majority of people want him and he is voted in...but lets call it as we see it...

Although it will be fun to watch Obama try and keep his promises when China finally decides to pick up their toys and go home....just keep watching those treasury yields....tick, tick, tick...

95% of people get a tax cut in this environment...are you kidding me?

tech guy you said Obama was an 80-90% favorite and that the market knew that. My point is that what you say is not entirely true as in early September the market had McCain ahead. The market had not priced in an Obama win. And at that time when McCain was ahead the stock market was stable.

The problems of this economy were also well known by at least one Paulson. Unfortunately not the one at Treasury but the very rich hedge fund manager. The market had not "tanked" until the point where Obama started to do much better. Coincidence? Causality? I do not know for sure. But neither do you. We cannot test your hypothesis. All I can do is point out the facts. And the fact is as you correctly point out there in a negative correlation between stock prices and the probability of an Obama win.

Are you arguing that an increase in tax rates is good for capital and real assets? Are you arguing that increasing taxes and reducing take home income in aggregate is a positive for equity markets? Are you arguing that windfall taxes on energy companies are a strong positive for S&P? That hypothesis I do not need to test and neither does the stock market.

It's hilarious when Obama supporters tell me that he will be "just like Clinton." Are they fucking kidding themselves? Clinton was a moderate democrat who cut the capital gains tax rate, lowered the deficit, reformed welfare, reduced crime, etc. Obama is far to the left of Clinton and even hillary.

But more importantly, when Clinton raised taxes in 1993, the economy was recovering from the recession of 1991-1992, and it was better able to sustain the tax hike. Obama's plan to raise taxes on income and investments during a recession is foolish and destructive.

But as garelj said, if this is what the American people want, let them have it. And then once we're back to the late 1970's of Jimmy Carter, they'll wake up from the media induced coma of "change and "hope" and vote Obama out in 2012.

"Are you arguing that an increase in tax rates is good for capital and real assets?"

No, I want lower spending and lower taxes. Sadly, neither side will give me this. Bush/McCain will spend a ton on a stupid war, and Obama will spend a ton on healthcare. I wish we didn't have to pay for either, but if I'm forced to choose, I choose healthcare.

The amount we're taxed is a red herring - what we spend is the real issue. Whether that money is spent out of tax revenue or increased debt doesn't actually matter (ultimately, it'll be paid by tax revenue). Republicans spend just as much as Democrats. More, according to the link I posted above.

"And at that time when McCain was ahead the stock market was stable."

If you think September's stock market was stable, we don't have enough common ground to have a useful debate. We'll have to agree to disagree and see where the economy stands in 4 years.

garelj - so we are now electing presidents for the short term movements in the stock market right after?
Yields are going to go up for other reasons that I discussed in detail weeks ago on UD. Mainly

a) end of 27 yr secular bull market in treasuries
b) artificially low rates from monetary policy fettering
c) massive massive issuance to fund debt and rescue from this crisis
d) credit worthiness of US debt by market players resulting from fiscal/monetary measures taken to ease this crisis; already showing up in CDS on 10 yr treasuries
e) massive holdings of treasuries by China, Japan, Russia, etc..already, just as we enter a major slowdown and ultimately consume less, yet try to borrow more
f) debt rollovers
g) eventual reversal in aggressive fed policy after this crisis eases

and on and on. Blaming the coming higher yields on the Obama presidency is quite misleading. I dont want to get into his policies now with you, just responding to this one point

I dont think the tax hikes are coming so quickly; just my $0.02. I think they will be put on hold until 2010, the earliest. Thoughts?

Folks that I speak with remain cautious on the market until several important issues are addressed:

Cap & trade or the proposal to propose tax on carbon. Potential for a adding substantial cost burden on US based industrial & energy sectors. Does little to address foreign competitors.

Capitals gains tax rate?

Windfall profits tax?

Dividend Tax Rate?

Cost of health care reform?

Lifting cap on medicare, medicare & social security taxes? Employer match would skyrocket employment cost.

Reduction of defense spending 25%? Potential large damage to a very significant US industry.

Labor: Abolition of the secret ballot?

Regulatory environment: Significant regulation coming for the finance sector but severity & scope are unknowns at this time.

Just a few issues that might be a tad disturbing for investors until the details on most of these issues become available.

UD, 2010 is a good guess as that is when the tax cuts sunset. No one in DC will even have to go on the record and vote for it. Simply doing nothing gets us the biggest tax increase in history. And our elected officials will claim they cannot be held accountable since they did not vote for it.

Hey, last I checked there was still a Bush in the White House.

You Republicans are really a joke. Obama's policies will "devastate" the economy? Interesting that economic growth is so much better under Democratic Presidents than under Republicans. Interesting that our economy has been devastated by Bush's policies. Interesting that Obama is supported by Warren Buffet (socialist!) Paul Volker (communist!) and Robert Rubin (idiot!).

It is highly amusing that you blame President-elect Obama for our economic problems before he even takes office. The market has been plummeting because of our economic problems, which were in substantial part either caused or exacerbated by GWB's policies. If Warren Buffet believes President-elect Obama will be good for the economy, good for the markets, and good for the country, I think we can rest assured that it is far from obvious, as you would have us believe, that he is going to devastate us.

Forgot to mention the current free trade agreements.

NAFTA, China trade & others. Will trade agreements be renegotiated? It's a biggie and a significant "?" at this time.

Based on what I heard yesterday, 3 out of the last 4 presidents enacted their sweeping changes in the first 8 months in office since that the honeymoon period. Expectation was that tax increases will likely be passed during this period and be retroactive to 1/1/09.

urbandigs - i love you analysis on your site and you are spot on from everything i read...

my point being is that because of the coming deficit, O will not be able to do the majority of things he wants, not that he is the reason for the yields to spike

having said that, his policies add fuel to the fire and until he calms the markets about his "anticipated" polices we will continue to see havoc in the market...

and its not just him...with the 60 person Democrat Senate possibly back on the table, its going to become even more cloudy...

and then the questions will come "where is the free gas and mortgages that you promised me"....some of these You Tube videos that we're put out we're out of control with people thinking what O was going to do vs. what he will do...

in the end i think he is a pretty smart dude and will veer to the center quite quick....but he'll need to articulate while 3/4 of the things he promised cannot get done cause they have no shot since we'll be digging out of this till the next time he runs....

Obama is going to be the best president and Franken is going to be a Senator.

You all miss the key point here: our economic problems have been caused and/or exacerbated by Republican leadership. It now turns out that Sarah Palin, when picked to serve as Vice President, did now know which countries were in NAFTA. She did not know that Africa was a continent rather than a country. Would you have been happy to have her one heartbeat away from the Presidency with a 72 yr old four time cancer patient in front of her? If you care at all about this country you should thank your stars that Obama is will be the new President.

It's never fun cleaning up after an elephant parade.

>Obama is going to be the best president<

Julia, I certainly hope so and I'm sure most folks on the planet wish him all the best. He certainly has a full plate on his hands.

I do have my doubts about Franken. :)

oh mimi..get over yourself and cut it out...your not that important.....venom?? now that made me laugh...i just tell it like it is...btw, you'll never be able to keep me on ignore...

I just knew those longer hemlines on lady's dresses would mess up the stock market. Damn anti-American fashion designers.

All I can say is, listening to some of the "logic" here, it becomes pretty clear whose take on real estate we should also be ignoring...

maybe if the guy doessome sort of a president-elect resignation it'll go back up a 1000. I'm all for it, how about you mimi??...hey it's 12% back on your 401k....

this guy Obama could put a trillion dollars back into people's pockets just by resigning...hey it's for the good of the country Barak!!

Steve, you really must be making a fortune as an investor if you think that the direction of the market is determined by someone who hasn't even taken office (as opposed to, say, by the brilliant leader who has been running things into the ground for the last 8 years, let alone corporate earnings and interest rates).

www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/business/07markets.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
some reasons stocks have fallen in the past two days--but blame it on obama

I'm sure Sarah Palin would have made an excellent president for the American economy after she learned that Africa is a continent and other minor things

happyrenter,

The market always looks forward, not backwards. I would expect some backpedaling on issues regarding the economy (less emphasis on raising taxes on the rich/corporations) when Obama addresses the economy.

I hope his treasury secretary pik is not Shelia "lets reward reckless home-borrowers" Blair

Bugel,

The market is looking forward, yes--to a continuing recession caused in significant part by failed Republican leadership. I am a great admirer of the President-elect, but only a fool would think that his policies can turn around this economy in short order. After years of horrible mismanagement it will take years to clean things up. Doesn't surprise me at all that the market will continue to have ups and downs.

In all likelihood George W. Bush will leave office with the markets at the same level as when he took office--a significant inflation-adjusted decline over 8 years. On average, the S and P nearly DOUBLES every 8 years. That means that under normal circumstances we would expect the Dow around 18,000. And you all think Republicans are good for the economy?

As this is a site supposedly devoted to New York City real estate, maybe we could leave politics aside and focus on the impact an Obama presidency and an overwhelmingly Democratically controlled congress will have on real estate values in our fair city.

Are you more or less inclined to buy real state in NYC today than you were a week ago? I am less inclined.

I am more inclined to sell now... Bloomberg is also not helping things.

happyrenter,

I completely agree that Bush did a horrible job with the economy BUT there is alot and i mean ALOT of blame to go around:
- Democrats insisting on easy loans to low income people, forcing lending standards down
- Democrats and various republicans protecting the hell out of Fannie/Freddie
- Greenspan for keeping rates at 1%. Notice NO ONE complained back then. No democrat, NO republican.. except maybe for Ron Paul
- Lack of oversight on wallstreet
- lack of oversight on mortgage brokers, appraisals, loan brokers. Democrats and republican to blame here

The ONLY thing and SOLE thing you can pin Bush on is the Iraq war, but the bad economy is from both parties and the "in my opinion" the policies put forward by Obama to tax the rich is only going to make it worse. The real fix is to let the bad companies fail, allow house prices to drop.. allow the strong responsible companies to pick up the assets cheap. It will be quick and painful verses a Japanese style lost decade

"The market always looks forward, not backwards."

Usually, but not always. Right now it does not remotely reflect fundamentals, and is extremely volatile. It is looking backwards.

BTW steveF is added to my "ignore this person" list. It's getting long.

I am equally inclined. A week ago it was obvious that Obama was going to win. Perhaps I am slightly more inclined, given that the probability of Sarah Palin becoming President has declined to close to zero.

If your question is really meant to determine whether I would be more inclined to purchase New York real estate under a President McCain or a President Obama, the answer is obvious: more inclined under a President Obama. John McCain has many virtues, but he is a grossly incompetent manager who admittedly knows nothinga bout the economy and may be suffering from the early stages of dementia (not politically correct, but true).

it could all just be that everyone was expecting a bump because of the election... and when the bump didn't materialize enough, people lost some short-term confidence.

happyrenter, please clarify without qualification. versus 1 week ago, are you more inclined or less inclined to buy nyc real estate?

Let's call Barack Obama what he is: a sock puppet for the ruling elite. Obama made this plainly obvious recently when he tabbed Zbigniew Brzezinski as his top foreign policy adviser.

happyrenter, you do realize that this is Streeteasy, not the Huffington Post, right?

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are our old friend PeterFitz posting under a new persona.

The direction of the market is determined by the ruling elite not the President. The ruling elite finds diversity useful they operate in a level that transcends white black right left. the supposed protagonist of “change,” has picked as VP a fixture of the Washington establishment, a six-term US senator who is a proven defender of American imperialism and the interests of big business. What about Republicans... well... in both parties there is only one true constituency: the financial aristocracy that dominates economic and political life and controls the mass media, and whose interests determine government policy, both foreign and domestic.

you left out the part about all of them being shape shifting lizards

actually nope, I don't eat that...!

Maybe I missed it, but no one seemed to note that the firms of Wall Street (admittedly, they haven't made the best choices recently) generally (Merrill aside) preferred Obama. There seems to be some inherent contradictions here. Thus far in this economic mess we've had something that Wall Street hasn't been accustomed to: a credit and liquidity crisis. What Wall Street knows, respects, fears, and responds to is GDP, ISM, PE, unemployment figures (U6 anyone?), future earnings guidance/predictions, consumer confidence numbers, and now, the Baltic Dry index. These numbers have only begun to tank (except, perhaps, Baltic. Kind of hard to imagine it much lower).

Actually,if consumer confidence goes much lower, I don't know what could possibly help us in the short to medium term. It hopefully is at least close to a low.

I'm impressed that anyone who hopes to do well in real estate has such simplistic views about the economy. For those on the left - Bush didn't cause this economic mess. For the right, Bush helped exacerbate it. Dems and repubs worked blissfully together over many, many years, back to the Clinton years, to build the house of cards.

No doubt the Obama victory stings and depresses many. However, to ascribe the market drop to his win is not only silly, but displays enormous market ignorance as many here have noted. Obamabots shouldn't be too snarky, though - this mess is beyond any one man's, one nation's, abilities. It will take years to recover. And before that, it will likely get worse, perhaps much worse, regardless of what is done beginning Jan 20th.

One thing Obama does have right, IMO, is that the infantile behavior of political leaders on both sides of the aisle that has been in evidence for the last 16 years has got to stop. America needs to suck it up a bit now, and we need to work together. Country first actually means something. If you get lend your hand, get out of the way.

I bought some more DOW, MHP and NWL today. Also, last week I bought AA at 10.39, I sold it on Tuesday for 12.59 because I was pissed about the market running up, I bought AA again today again for 10.59. I am a Conservative, so I am happy that the Republicans got punished for their profligate spending and inattention to basic issues that hurt the average American (e.g. oil prices). I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance to see what he can do. As usual, I agree with Stevejhx, while I have no idea when this thing bottoms, this market is not reflecting all of the stimulus that has already been put into place, not does it seem to reflect the stimulus that is coming. Urbandigs will opine, correctly, that is is inflationary, and it may well be. However, Obama, unless he is a radical and seeks to totally gut what we have left of capitalism (which I doubt), will stimulate the heck out of this economy, which will benefit equities in the relatively near future. Gold is only good if you think you can use it to barter when moey is rendered worthless. And, as I have said, if that is waht the world may come to, guns, ammo, food and medicine will be much more valuable than gold.

I find this fasinatng...because the market isn't doing what some people want it to do it is sudenly "irrational". Can someone tell me the name of the individual who opined the following " the markets can be irrational longer than you can stay solvent"

Steve (and unfortunatly mh23) you should write a letter for hedge funds ...you sound just like them...ridiculous...the market will do what it is destined to do irrespective of all the drugs the central banks try to pump into it.

Stevejhx you of all people know there are no more bubbles to blow up.

mhj: I thoght you could handle a 20% downturn from the October 10th low? What has happened to u" are u serious when you state that the "market is not paying attention to all the liquidity that is being added" so let me get this straight, you are expecting a repeat of 2003...where the market just took off as a result of the unsustainable bubble created by the unprecedented increase in liquidity by the central bank?

if what you say is true then everyone should purchase real estate in Ny tomorrow...be careful...don't attack me by calling me names...that makes you no different than the real estate bulls :

I don't think you can blame Obama for this...the market was destined to go down...this is a bear market all rallies are bs until proven otherwise

happyrenter - It now turns out that Sarah Palin, when picked to serve as Vice President, did now know which countries were in NAFTA. She did not know that Africa was a continent rather than a country.

Uh, yeah, that is likely.

stevejhx
about 6 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse "The market always looks forward, not backwards."

Usually, but not always. Right now it does not remotely reflect fundamentals, and is extremely volatile. It is looking backwards.

This from the guy with the worst investment record ever actually admitted without being required by the SEC.

stevejhx
about 6 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse BTW steveF is added to my "ignore this person" list. It's getting long.

It is getting long Mr. Hanley. But we don't expect much from you.

east_cider
about 5 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse happyrenter, you do realize that this is Streeteasy, not the Huffington Post, right?
I have a sneaking suspicion that you are our old friend PeterFitz posting under a new persona.

No no, happyrenter is just McHale. McHale is the one who is Petrfitz.

If Obama openly adopts the key points from this Reuters article, he will get my deep respect. (I'm sure there will be outcries from both parties) If he is truly above bickering and politics he should adopt the common sense points in the article.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/11/06/ten-commandments-for-the-first-30-days-in-office/

steve and mh23 : I don't see how you can call for an inflationary increase in one asset class (stocks) without there being an increase in another one (real estate).

flmd, I don't follow you. I have been building and adding to positions as this market has come down. My only move was to sell for a profit because I was frustrated at what I felt was an irrational move up. I don't know what you mean by 20% down, except that I will be buying, slowly and deliberately, on the way down, if that is what occurred. I thought I explained this strategy to you already. Again, I did sell for a nice profit for equities I held for less than a week only to buy them back again at the same price. I normally don't trade stocks, but when it is that easy, I can't help it.
As for inflation, I have no idea how this stimulus will end. The actions that are being taken are those that are traditionally inflationary, however, in this case, they may be just right as these moves come not when the economy was relatively strong, i.e. 2002, but when we are in the biggest slowdown in perhaps a generation. As for real estate, the reason we have this bubble is due to the fact that prices have already way outpaced incomes. Now that there are no longer exotic lending instruments, and wages have not gone up, all that can and will happen is that prices will come down.

idiocy and unpleasantness up - thry're calling it the stevef effect.

"See while you guys are correcting spelling mistakes i'm out making deals.....don't look at the word, read the sentence...you might learn something..."

What's to learn? If one's sentences are rife with spelling and grammar errors (your instead of you're, their rather than they're, grammer for grammar) it is difficult to take seriously any point one tries to make.

Any person "out making deals" must certainly appreciate the importance of appearance and keeping the upper hand. Bad grammar, garbled syntax, and spelling mistakes can be as great a detriment as walking into a boardroom decked out in a poly blend Men's Wearhouse suit, scuffed shoes, and cheap watch.

Unless, of course, one happens to be making deals on a used car lot.

Squid...read this....THE A & B STUDENTS WORK FOR THE C&D STUDENTS....that was from an entrepreneur during my finance thesis class....that's because the A&B work their way up the corporate ladder nice/nice spelling everything correctly while the C&D's are out starting businesses, having their A&B subordinates fix the spelling mistakes.....I'm just try'n to help you..

Someone's actual success is inversely proportional to how much they brag about it. For example, petrfitz.

Steve - no need to be an A/B student to write grammatically sound sentences. This is basic stuff even C- minds should be able to grasp.

Besides, do you honestly think someone like Michael Bloomberg misuses simple words like their or your or it's? How about Ted Turner? Bill Gates? Of course not.

The simple fact is those who express themselves poorly, either in speech or on paper, will inevitably find themselves at a disadvantage in any career or business prospect that requires intelligent communication.

Squid..The simple fact is those who express themselves poorly, either in speech or on paper, will inevitably find themselves at a disadvantage in any career or business prospect that requires intelligent communication

not if your the owner of a product they want............

oh excuse me, you're..but agin who cares....use the spell check

Steve's problem isn't that he can't spell, can't write, and can't construct a sentence. His problem is that he can't think. I hope we can all agree that intelligent thought is required for success in any field.

As for this ABCD student issue, anyone who thinks that worse students do better, on average, than better students knows absolutely nothing about the relationship between educational attainment and economic success. Bill Gates went to Harvard. Warren Buffet went to Columbia Business School and can play bridge with world class professionals. Barack Obama went to Columbia AND Harvard. George Soros speaks five languages. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, attend four different colleges and took six years to graduate with a BA in communications from the University of Idaho.

I'm no elitist. I know that there are fools at Harvard and geniuses who never make it to college at all. But there is a very strong correlation between success in school and success in life.

steveF, it's pretty clear you don't know anything about the stock market. Despite all the "worse than expected" economic data coming out on the day of election, stocks soared, now that's the Obama effect (that's my word), now most people would call that election day rally - some people expect stocks to soar before/after election as it reduces uncertainty (and stock market hates uncertainty). The stocks dropping two days consequently after the election, that's ALL economie (not Obama). Now, don't worry, you'll find plenty of things to blame Obama for going forward. Contrary to what people believe, he's only human, he'll make mistakes. But the recent stock market falls after the election, nono, that's still Bush, not Obama.

"Squid...read this....THE A & B STUDENTS WORK FOR THE C&D STUDENTS....that was from an entrepreneur during my finance thesis class....that's because the A&B work their way up the corporate ladder nice/nice spelling everything correctly while the C&D's are out starting businesses, having their A&B subordinates fix the spelling mistakes.....I'm just try'n to help you.."

Yes, and the best source of info is... the C and D student.

BTW, if you look at average salaries 10 years out of undergrad, better schools do much better. Yale topped the list. Ivies/Stanford/MIT covered the entire top 10. Those are all generally A students in high school...

Lots of C&D students are starting cleaning business and dry cleaners. That doesn't mean a whole lot...

Not to mention, the original quote is just a bad stereotype. Tons of A students start businesses, too. I'm one of 'em... I have some B and C students working for me... but the majority are As or top 25 school types.

"not if your the owner of a product they want............"

*sigh*

Happyrenter, good post.

Some other iteresting ones...
Top Hedge Fund guys, predominantly Ivy
Top VC guys, majority have Stanford or Harvard MBA
Steve Schwarzman, Yale
Wasserstein, Michigan and Harvard MBA and JD (and won top honors)

and my favorite... Gene Simmons speaks 7 languages.

obama effect took place on his news conference today. Market went down 150 pts while he was speaking of his economic plan or lack of one.

No, it went down because it shouldn't have been up in the first place. There is no way the market had priced in today's economic news. Maybe October's employment numbers, but not the auto industry's dire news or the revisions to August and September employment numbers. That's just fugly.

Hey nyc do you happen to know where that expert on International Relations Sean Penn went to school?

Looks like Obama's honeymoon with the media might be ending soon...

"U.S. Stocks Gain on Rate Speculation; Gain Is Pared After Obama "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajwi8WdxaVPM&refer=home

Bloomberg has been saying all day that the stock gains were due to rate speculation. Utter stupidity. How we could be cheering as we near the 0% interest rate that the Japanese used so ineffectively in their slowdown is beyond me. I never really noticed a Bloomberg lean toward Obama.

3:05 pm : President-elect Obama has started a news conference after meeting with his economic team. He said America needs a rescue plan for the middle class, including a fiscal stimulus plan. He will also review the current administration's financial plan.

The stock market gives up half of its gains as Obama makes his statements.

Briefing.com

market ended up 250...

yes after Obama stopped talking.....whatever, i hope he does well, i just don't think he will as i didn't think palin would have done well either. But we are stuck with him. So let's hope for the best.

Do you people understand the difference between correlation and causation? While I was eating lunch the market went down, but then while I was taking a taxi it went up. Maybe if I ride around in taxis all day and starve myself the market will soar! People who are too lazy or too stupid to study macro- and micro-economic fundamentals love to engage in magical thinking about the markets--that they go down when it rains, that crashes always take place in October etc. etc. etc. Barack Obama is going to be giving lots and lots of speeches over the next four or eight years. I imagine that sometimes the market will go up while he speaks, and sometimes it will go down. Unless he is delivering significant economic news or announcing major economic policies, I find it hard to believe that any market pattern will emerge relating to his speaking.

If you brilliant investment minds think that the market is going to tank every time the President-elect talks then by all means construct a trading strategy to take advantage of your insight.

President Obama is very special...he said he spoke with the living presidents...now I'm positive we voted correctly

"President Obama is very special...he said he spoke with the living presidents...now I'm positive we voted correctly"

I take it you're being sarcastic. Because this is not "special", it's standard protocol.