Easy investing: bet against what Obama "invests" in, go long what he hates

[glenn1]

World's easiest investment method follows, and I'm giving it to you for free. Quite simply, use Obama as your contrarian indicator. If he supports something, then short it (especially if he "invests" government funds in it, or subsidizes it). If he speaks out against it, tries to regulate it, or creates some new agency for it, then go long on it. Backtesting follows, with examples of Obama-favored short candidates (green energy), and Obama hated long candidates (wall street, oil companies, health insurers).

Shorts:

Longs:

 

[Siddhartha]

Mr Obama "hates" Wall Street, Oil and Health Insurance Companies? I have read on this forum that he is Wall Streets' et al bitch.

My point is you are projecting to fit the data.

 

[PeshakJang]

Mr Obama "hates" Wall Street, Oil and Health Insurance Companies? I have read on this forum that he is Wall Streets' et al bitch.

My point is you are projecting to fit the data.

Hating something has never prevented a leftist from exploiting that thing. Nothing precludes the scenario in which he actively works to destroy something, even if it is out of pure ignorance and not out of disdain, yet still gladly accepts that entity's help in doing so.

Wall street will throw as much money at him as they can, to ensure the possibility exists of getting inside his inner circle (like GE, GM, et al), while at the same time he works to damage the industry. Obama hates things that he perceives to be contrary to his Marxist agenda. If he perceives that a bank is all on board, that bank will be in a prime position to receive one of the thousands of waivers he's given out to his favored players. Else, they will face the full brunt of his agenda.

Another example of socialism being great for the people, not the socialists.

Break the argument.

 

[Bowfinger]

2/10

I'll give you a couple of points for the pretty graphs, but beyond that this is a blatant troll, cherry-picking data and spinning the truth to make a gratuitous attack on Obama. All tripe, no substance.

 

[Bowfinger]

Mr Obama "hates" Wall Street, Oil and Health Insurance Companies? I have read on this forum that he is Wall Streets' et al bitch.

My point is you are projecting to fit the data.

And he signed legislation that will give health insurers billions of dollars worth of new customers. I just wish he "hated" me half as much.

 

[PeshakJang]

And he signed legislation that will give health insurers billions of dollars worth of new customers. I just wish he "hated" me half as much.

And make them pay out billions more in additional claims that they otherwise wouldn't?

We're going to give you these new customers! Of course, they all have chronic conditions that we will force you to pay for and that you will have to compensate for by raising your rates across the board or lose money, but we are giving you new customers!

The mind of a liberal...

Again, the insurance companies and companies that will succeed are those that gain favor and thus win a waiver of some requirement from the administration. There isn't anyway for you to argue this fact, since it's already happening plain as day.

You can't break the argument.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I did this in 2009. When the Obamacare debate first started all the insurance companies tanked. I knew they would be fine so bought a few of them. They ended up setting new highs when everyone realized that the final bill was practically a handout to the insurance companies.

 

[Daverino]

The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

 

[Siddhartha]

Hating something has never prevented a leftist from exploiting that thing. Nothing precludes the scenario in which he actively works to destroy something, even if it is out of pure ignorance and not out of disdain, yet still gladly accepts that entity's help in doing so.

Wall street will throw as much money at him as they can, to ensure the possibility exists of getting inside his inner circle (like GE, GM, et al), while at the same time he works to damage the industry. Obama hates things that he perceives to be contrary to his Marxist agenda. If he perceives that a bank is all on board, that bank will be in a prime position to receive one of the thousands of waivers he's given out to his favored players. Else, they will face the full brunt of his agenda.

Another example of socialism being great for the people, not the socialists.

Break the argument.

What?
I can tell your post is Anti-Obama but what does it have to do with the OP?

 

[HomerJS]

This kinda kills your entire point...

GM posts highest profits ever

 

[PeshakJang]

This kinda kills your entire point...

GM posts highest profits ever

And they are still down 20% from their IPO. And they are bleeding money overseas. Think there is going to be another Japanese tsunami to help them again this year? Obama better get that weather machine going.

 

[First]

And they are still down 20% from their IPO. And they are bleeding money overseas. Think there is going to be another Japanese tsunami to help them again this year? Obama better get that weather machine going.

lol troll.

 

[glenn1]

This kinda kills your entire point...

GM posts highest profits ever

Actually, it doesn't. You're forgetting that the old common stockholders were wiped out in the bankruptcy. So if you went short when Obama got involved, you would have done great.

 

[sandorski]

Someone, for shits and giggles, should use the strategy IRL. I suspect they'll lose their shirt.

 

[readymix]

listen up next time chump.

Obama: It's a Good Time to Buy Stocks




Published March 03, 2009

FOXNews.com



President Obama said Tuesday that now is a good time for investors to buy stocks if they focus on the big picture.

The Dow plunged Monday to its lowest level in 12 years.

"What you're now seeing is a profit and earnings ratios get to the point that buying stocks is a good thing if you have a long-term perspective on it," he said to reporters after meeting in the Oval Office with visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.




The president compared the market to daily tracking polls used by politicians, saying that paying too close attention to Wall Street's "fits and starts" could lead to bad long-term policy.

"The stock market is story of like a tracking poll in politics. It bobs up and down day-to-day," Obama said. "And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong."

Obama said he is not measuring policies against "the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market," but by whether lending is flowing more freely, businesses are investing and the unemployed are going back to work.

He said he is "absolutely confident" that those things will happen. But the president also said it will take time fore the mistakes of the past to work their way through the system.

"There are a lot of losses that are working their way through the system and it's not surprising the market is hurting as a consequence," he said. "We dug a very deep hole for ourselves. There were a lot of bad decisions that were made. We are cleaning up that mess. It's going to be sort of full of fits and starts, in terms of getting the mess cleaned up, but it's going to get cleaned up. And we are going to recover, and we are going to emerge more prosperous, more unified, and I think more protected from systemic risk."

 

[Rainsford]

An investing strategy based entirely on exaggeration of Obama's positions and cherry picking of the results seems like a truly terrible idea. Hell, any investing idea based off limited historical data as a way to predict future moves is doomed to failure.

I thought conservatives were supposed to understand how money works

 

[Zorba]

Actually, it doesn't. You're forgetting that the old common stockholders were wiped out in the bankruptcy. So if you went short when Obama got involved, you would have done great.

Yeah because the government money made them file chapter 11 and they would've been just fine with no government intervention and no chapter 11.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah because the government money made them file chapter 11 and they would've been just fine with no government intervention and no chapter 11.

You're not really disputing my point; sure, the common shareholders would have been wiped out in a normal bankruptcy. But in the Obama intervention they were still wiped out, and probably more quickly than if the company had gone through normal bankruptcy. And to top it all off, the senior bondholders were given a big haircut as well even though they should have gotten priority over unsecured creditors like the union.

 

[Jhhnn]

What is this "Long" you speak of? Your charts don't even cover 2 years...

Or is "Long" now anything other than the split second buy/sell times of HST?

 

[silverpig]

What is this "Long" you speak of? Your charts don't even cover 2 years...

Or is "Long" now anything other than the split second buy/sell times of HST?

"Long" means bet on it. "Short" means bet against it.


If you have a long position in a stock, you want it to go up. If you have a short position in a stock, you want it to go down.


You can have a long position for 5 minutes, and a short position for 10 years.

 

[Rainsford]

You're not really disputing my point; sure, the common shareholders would have been wiped out in a normal bankruptcy. But in the Obama intervention they were still wiped out, and probably more quickly than if the company had gone through normal bankruptcy. And to top it all off, the senior bondholders were given a big haircut as well even though they should have gotten priority over unsecured creditors like the union.

The point is that picking a company that was failing already as an example of your "Obama involvement" argument isn't very convincing.

GM is a particularly silly example for another reason. It's not like Obama himself was personally involved with GM. His involvement came from the fact that he is President and a failing GM was bailed out by the government (starting before Obama was even President).

So your analysis is basically that you should short companies that are doing so poorly they need government bailouts to stay afloat. Warren Buffet better watch out...

 

[glenn1]

The point is that picking a company that was failing already as an example of your "Obama involvement" argument isn't very convincing.

GM is a particularly silly example for another reason. It's not like Obama himself was personally involved with GM. His involvement came from the fact that he is President and a failing GM was bailed out by the government (starting before Obama was even President).

So your analysis is basically that you should short companies that are doing so poorly they need government bailouts to stay afloat. Warren Buffet better watch out...

I did not include the auto makers in my initial list for the reason I knew their common was going to zero regardless of Obama's involvement. Someone else cited them as an example to refute my theory and I simply responded, showing where they were incorrect.

 

[blackangst1]

Fail.

Obama bets on healthcare.
Invest in healthcare stocks.
?
PROFIT.

 

[hiromizu]

I think you will fail if you try this. Your and moron

 

[CallMeJoe]

...Your and moron

Noted for irony.