Presidential Elections and Stock Market Cycles

Can you profit from the relationship?

By MARSHALL NICKLES, EDD
2004 Volume 7 Issue 3

For the past several decades, individuals in all walks of life have observed the cyclical nature of the stock market. Pundits
have attempted to correlate these cycles with everything from referencing the position of the moon and stars to using highly
sophisticated econometric models. This article, however, attempts to address the timely relationship between politics and
stock market behavior.
During the first half of the twentieth century, economic theory was limited primarily to the micro study of supply and demand
theory. Minimal concern was given to the macro economic environment. However, after World War II, the work of John
Maynard Keynes, an English economist, began to dominate Western economic thinking with a broad macro view of
economics. First presented in 1936 by Keynes, this approach was the beginning of macro economic theory. It called for
governments to prescribe specific macro economic policies in an effort to ameliorate business cycles. By the late 1950s,
Keynesian theory was widely accepted in academic circles and was being taught at most major U.S. universities.[1] The
federal government began to embrace Keynesian economics by the early 1960s, and from that time forward, Washington
has played an active role in influencing the direction of the economy.

Its the Economy, Stupid

It wasnt long before politicians recognized the relationship between voter approval and the state of the economy. The
Federal Reserve has responsibility for monetary policy such as interest rates and alterations in the money supply, and the
executive branch has limited ability to influence that part of the economy. However, the executive branch of government can
influence fiscal policychanges in taxation and spending patterns. Administrations have often yielded to the temptation to
exercise fiscal policy in a manner designed to pump up the economy just prior to a presidential election and thus garner
voter approval for the incumbent party. These pre-election actions and campaign promises often have created some
euphoria among voters and investors alike.
On the other hand, post-election periods seem to have suffered from an opposite effect that has resulted in less investor
optimism. In The Stock Traders Almanac, 2004, Yale Hirsch notes that based on his studies, Presidential elections every
four years have a profound impact on the economy and the stock market. Wars, recessions and bear markets tend to start
or occur in the first half of the term and bull markets, in the latter half.[2]
Because of the consistency and predictability of administrative actions and campaign rhetoric and their anticipated
influences on the economy, investors have come to assume better times for business conditions, corporate bottom lines, and
stock prices in the period prior to a presidential election and a less robust period following those periods. Thus, a four-year
stock market cycle seems to have become a part of the investment landscape since the mid-twentieth century. From April,
1942 to October, 2002, 15 stock market cycles have occurred, each averaging approximately four years duration.
Major market cycles usually have abrupt V-shaped bottoms with declines in excess of 10 percent. The following stock
market recoveries are often created (as suggested earlier) by strong economic stimulus invoked by government officials in
an effort to counter potentially unpopular economic recessions. Strong doses of fiscal and/or monetary policy stimuli
unfortunately often result in creating inflation, which then must be addressed, thereby perpetuating the business and stock
market cycles. Given the foregoing scenario, it is not at all surprising to find that the stock market often has made major
bottoms about two years before presidential elections and has risen through the end of election years.
To illustrate this pattern, consider the historical performance of the commonly used Standard & Poors 500 Index (S&P 500).
This Index consists of 500 top U.S. companies, and it is used by Wall Street as a benchmark for tracking the overall stock
market. Table 1 below shows the historical stock market cycles from 1942 2002.

Table 1
Historical Stock Market Cycles for the S&P 500 Index
(1942 2002)
Dates of

Peaks/

S&P

Length of

Bull

Length of

Bear

Full

Peaks &

Troughs

Price

Bull Market

Market

Bear Market

Market

Cycle in

(years)

Rise (%)

(years)

Decline (%) Years

4.08

158%
.36

-27%

4.45

.99

-21

2.68

.69

-15%

4.25

1.22

-22%

4.10

.54

-28%

4.68

.66

-22%

4.28

1.49

-36%

3.63

1.72

-48%

4.36

1.45

-19%

3.42

1.70

-27%

4.44

.28

-34%

5.31

.24

-20%

2.85

.17

-9

3.48

.08

-19%

4.30

2.5

-26%

4.02

0.94 yrs

-26.4%

4.02

Troughs
4/42

Trough

7.47

5/46

Peak

19.25

10/46

Trough

14.12

6/48

Peak

17.06

6/49

Trough

13.55

1/53

Peak

26.66

9/53

Trough

22.71

8/56

Peak

49.74

10/57

Trough

38.98

12/61

Peak

72.64

6/62

Trough

52.32

2/66

Peak

94.06

10/66

Trough

73.20

11/68

Peak

108.37

5/70

Trough

69.29

1/73

Peak

120.24

10/74

Trough

62.28

9/76

Peak

107.83

3/78

Trough

86.90

11/80

Peak

140.52

8/82

Trough

102.42

8/87

Peak

336.77

12/87

Trough

223.93

7/90

Peak

368.95

10/90

Trough

295.46

2/94

Peak

482.00

4/94

Trough

438.92

7/98

Peak

1186.74 4.25

8/98

Trough

957.28

3/00

Peak

1527.45 1.58

10/02

Trough

776.75

Averages

1.68

3.56

2.88

4.14

3.62

2.15

2.63

1.97

2.73

5.03

2.61

20%

97%

119%

86%

80%

48%

74%

73%

62%

229%

65%

3.31

3.08 yrs

170%

60%

93%

As we can see from Table 1, full cycles occur approximately every four years. During this period, bull markets averaged
about three years, while bear markets averaged less than a year. A more detailed investigation that includes presidential
election cycles for the period from 1941 through 2000 reveals some interesting findings. Stock market lows have occurred
surprisingly close to mid-year congressional elections, or approximately two years before presidential elections. (See Table
2.)

Table 2
Presidential Elections and Market Troughs
Presidential Term

Month and Year

Year During

of Market Bottom

Presidential Term
When Market Bottomed

1942 1944

4/42

2nd Year

1945 1948

10/46

2nd Year

1949 1952

6/49

1st Year

1953 1956

9/53

1st Year

1957 1960

10/57

1st Year

1961 1964

6/62

2nd Year

1965 1968

10/66

2nd Year

1969 1972

5/70

2nd Year

1973 1976

10/74

2nd Year

1977 1980

3/78

2nd Year

1981 1984

8/82

2nd Year

1985 1988

12/87

3rd Year

1989 1992

10/90

2nd Year

1993 1996

4/94

2nd Year

1997 2000

8/98

2nd Year

2001 2004

10/02

2nd Year
Average = 1.87 years into presidential term

Table 2 clearly shows a clustering of bear market lows around the congressional election period, or about two years into the
presidential term. As can be seen, three of the 16 bear market lows occurred in year one of the presidential term, 12 in year
two, one in year three, and none in year four (the election year).

Potential Investment Strategies Based on the Political Cycle

Price data for the S&P 500 Index was compiled and averaged on a weekly basis over the period from 1942 to 2003.
Analyses of these data suggest that a potentially lucrative investment strategy would have included buying on October 1 of
the second year of the presidential election term and selling out on December 31 of year four. This simple strategy would
have sidestepped practically all down markets for the last 60 years. For the most part, bear markets have historically
occurred during the first or second years of presidential terms. (A bear market is defined here as the S & P 500 Indexs
decline approximately 15 percent or more over a period of one to three years, while a bull market is an environment of
consistently rising prices.) As shown in the above table, no bear markets of this magnitude have occurred during an election
year for the time covered.
It is also apparent that markets are subject to change from time to time because of unforeseen macro events. As a result,
some cycles have been shorter and some longer than the norm. For example, 1946 to 1949 was a shorter cycle, while 1982
to 1987 and 1994 to 1998 were longer than average cycles. One cannot point to any one factor that has directly caused bull
market runs of the last two decades to be longer in duration than those during previous decades. To speculate on the above
is beyond the scope of this paper, although fundamental economic conditions and the role of the Federal Reserve are
factors.

The Test

Based on discussions above and the notion that the S&P 500 Index seems to bottom approximately two years into
presidential terms (Table 2), we can construct a hypothetical test for two investors that calculates the dollar return for two
simple alternative investment strategies. In neither case is allowance given for possible dividends or interest earned. In
addition, commissions and taxes are ignored for the purpose of simplicity. Prior to the 1952 presidential election, the U.S.
government generally did not attempt to influence the economy in any significant way, so the period before 1952 (except for
the World War II period) is not useful for testing this strategy. Therefore, the test begins with the 1952 election period.
Imagine that the first investor had consistently purchased the S&P 500 Index 27 months before presidential elections and
had sold near election time on December 31 of the election year. Because a 27-month period seems to provide better
returns than other studied periods before the election, a 27-month period was selected for this test. This strategy kept
Investor 1 out of the market from January 1 of the inaugural year through September 30 of the second year during the test
period. On the other hand, imagine further that Investor 2 bought the S&P 500 on the first trading day of the inaugural year
of each presidential election during the test period and liquidated the portfolio on September 30 of the second year of the
presidential term. Would either or both of these simple procedures have consistently made money for the investors? Table 3
below reveals the results on both a percentage change basis and dollar return.
Table 3
Percentage and Dollar Returns of Two Investment Strategies
(Dollars Amounts are Cumulative)
Starting Value for Investors 1 and 2 = $1,000
Presidential

Percent Change from

Percent Change from

Investor 1

Investor 2

Election

Oct 1 of 2nd yr of

Jan. 1 of inaugural yr

dollar results

dollar results

Dates

Presidential term

through Sept. 30 of

(beginning

(beginning

through Dec. 31 of

second yr of

with $1,000)

with $1,000)

election yr. (Investor 1

presidential term

strategy)

(Investor 2 strategy)

1952

+35%

+22%

$1,350

$1,220

1956

+45%

+8%

$1,956

$1,318

1960

+16%

-2%

$2,271

$1,291

1964

+52%

-9%

$3,451

$1,175

1968

+39%

-19%

$4,798

$952

1972

+40%

-47%

$6,717

$505

1976

+70%

-4%

$11,418

$483

1980

+32%

-12%

$15,072

$425

1984

+37%

+40%

$20,649

$595

1988

+19%

+11%

$24,571

$660

1992

+38%

+7%

$33,909

$707

1996

+60%

+42%

$54,254

$1,004

2000

+34%

-36%

$72,701

$643

The findings in Table 3 are extremely interesting. The first investor put up money 13 times and did not lose money in any
period. Gains ranged from a high of 70 percent prior to the 1976 election to a low of 16 percent before the 1960 election.
Investor 1 saw the original investment of $1,000 grow to $72,701. This is a percentage gain of 7,170 percent. Investor 2 was
not so fortunate. This individual also anted up 13 times, but lost six times. The largest loss of -36 percent was seen after the
presidential election of 2000. Investor 2 saw the original $1,000 shrink to only $643, or a loss of -36 percent, in nearly five
decades. That percentage is based on nominal dollars and does not include the impact of inflation.
Graphing the percentage gain and loss makes the difference quite obvious.

However, when you look at a graph of the cumulative dollar difference between the two strategies, the difference is even
more dramatic!

Final Thoughts
It is not the intent of this paper to forecast the stock market. Even where patterns exist, there is enough variability that it is
risky to try to anticipate specific turns in the market. Yet we have identified a potentially profitable four-year stock market
cycle that has worked well over the better part of the last century. Investing for the 27 months before a U.S. presidential
election certainly seems to be more profitable than investing during the 21 months after the elections.
However, just when you think that you have figured it all out, you find another pattern that can suggest different possibilities.
For instance, another analysis shows a highly intriguing re-occurrence in the stock market index. During the entire twentieth
century, every mid-decade year that ended in a 5 (1905, 1915, 1925, etc.) was profitable! This is not to say that all of these
years had uninterrupted ascending trends, but by years end there had been impressive gains. Whether that pattern was a
fluke or will continue in the 21st century is anyones guess. And, 2005 is also an inaugural year.
However, trying to figure out such patterns can certainly make life interesting.

[1] John Maynard Keynes, General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, 1936. Republished by Harcourt, Inc. (1964).
A further discussion of Keynesian economics can be found in most college level textbooks on economics. There are also
websites devoted to his work, e.g.,http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/keynes/keynescont.htm or http://www-gap.dcs.stand.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Keynes.html
[2] Yale Hirsch and Jeffrey Hirsch, The Stock Traders Almanac 2004, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, (2004): 127.

About the Author(s)

Marshall Nickles, EdD, has been instrumental in the development of Pepperdine's School of Business and Management. He
has also been a consultant to several corporations such as Volkswagen of North America, 3M Corporation and Loctite
Corporation. In addition, he has served as a board member to The China Economy Consultancy Co. in the People's
Republic of China, The China American Technology Investment Group, vice president and board member of The AmericanChina Association for Science and Technology Exchange, and advisory board member for Irwin Duskin Press. Dr. Nickles
has also been a frequent presenter and discussant of professional papers at national and international academic
associations. He has been a former financial columnist for The Orange County Business Journal and Business to Business
Magazine. Prof. Nickles is the author of an economics text and more than 45 articles. Dr. Nickles has been quoted on
television, and in several newspapers and magazines, such as The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the New York Times,
the Orange County Register, Barrons Weekly, Stocks & Commodities Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times . He has been
an invited guest on KNX 1070 radio, KTLA Channel 5, Fox Television, CNBC, and as the principal speaker at the national
conference of the State Bureau of Statistics in Beijing, China. Prof. Nickles was the recipient of the Howard A. White
distinguished teaching award at Pepperdines Graziadio School of Business and Management.
Issue: 2004 Volume 7 Issue 3
Topic: Finance / Investing / Accounting
Tags: Economics, market trends, stock market

Comments
Peter Duffy
December 16, 2011 at 7:48 am

Interesting read. Very good.

Arlene C
February 25, 2012 at 10:56 am

Excellent article. It is good to read an article that explains everything clearly and contains everything you wanted to know in
simple words and charts. Very interesting, I really enjoyed it.Thank You Marshall Nickles, EdD

Idan
April 9, 2012 at 12:31 am

Very good article.

mind that this method performed terribly during the 2008 elections.

Yap
April 18, 2012 at 6:44 pm

Hi, great article, however, I tried briefly to verify table 2, and found myself disagreeing that 1994 and 1998 were troughs as
indicated by the table. 1998 for example, S&P prices were much higher than 1996, so post-1996 elections, there was no
slump in market. The same goes for the 1992 elections.

Obama
June 21, 2012 at 3:52 pm

As another poster commented, 2008 was an election year but a big down year and certainly a bear market. For that cycle
you would have been far better off buying in October of 2009.
We have had corrections every year since 2008. This is an election year, but the 2008 election year failed us. However the
system would have indicated a buy in October of 2010, in the high 1100 range. At a conservative 20%, that would set the
election year finish to the low to mid 1300s. We are currently right at that point after todays big drawdown.
So the question is whether we get a 2008 style collapse or if the regular pattern continues. Aside from election years, year
end rallies usually happen, so even with a drop and a short term bear market, we could still finish up to the projected trend
target on the low end. If we are indeed in a bear market, it was probably signaled in April, which would set October as a
possible trough.

Jack
July 25, 2012 at 7:13 am

Thanks for artcle. What happened to investor 3 that dollar cost averaged the entire period? In the middle, a little under, or
over?

Benn
August 26, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Now that we have seen an early rally from Jan 2011-Aug 2012Can this theory work when the market has done so well
during these last 17 months it does not support this theorys predictions? I do not see any clear trends yet even though the
market is up during these last 17 monthsthen is this theory missing a derivative that reinforces it? I see growth for last two
years are we now expected to see a collapsed market for the next two years. Does the 2 years growth then two years
decline cyclical projections seem to make sense now.

John Schmertz
October 4, 2012 at 7:54 am

Thought you folks might be interested in this site. Has a number of different views of the major secular market cycles of the
last 100 years:http://www.macrotrends.org/series/stock-market-cycles