9/18/2012 6:27 PM ET|
Romney is losing Wall St. to Obama
Commentary: Ideology and policies matter, of course, but the investment community always goes with a winner.
When it comes to U.S. presidential politics, lose Wall Street and you've lost the election.
I know, I know. Many of you are going to call me liberal patsy, a mouthpiece for President Barack Obama. You're going to say I'm in the tank, a Democratic hack. Blah, blah, blah.
Whatever. You can disagree with me, but you can't argue with facts, and you can't dispute history. If it were the other way around, I'd call it as such.
The fact is, Romney is behind.
And history shows that, as a presidential election nears, Wall Street -- represented by the securities, banking, insurance and real-estate industries -- tends to go with a winner.
This doesn't mean that Romney, who made his career in private equity at Bain Capital, and Paul Ryan, who once championed turning a portion of our Social Security taxes over to personal investment accounts, aren't more ideologically in line with the financial industry. They are.
It doesn't mean that investors who support fiscally conservative principles have abandoned Romney in favor of Obama. They haven't.
What it does mean is that Romney continues to trail in key races. He's behind by at least five points in the critical swing states of Ohio, Florida and Virginia, according to a new round of polls. Wall Street wants to hedge its bets, buy some influence and be on the winning side. So, it has to make a choice: Support the loser or the winner.
Wall Street always goes with a winner.
It happened in 1996, 2000 and 2008. Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama all saw a rush in contributions just before the election, according to Federal Election Commission data.
The closest to an exception to the rule was in 2004 when Democratic nominee John Kerry started seeing an increase in contributions from Wall Street in the final few weeks before the election. The reason? A tight race with an uncertain outcome. And, even so, President Bush was still outraising Kerry 2 to 1. It had been 3 to 1.
This year is shaping up to be similar. Romney has raised $28.6 million from finance, insurance and real-estate donors. Obama has raised $12.2 million through Aug. 21. But there's a lot of chatter about how the gap has narrowed since then.
More from MarketWatch:
- Better governance could have stopped mining deaths
- Grading Obama on the economy
- Ryan vanishing in Romney's shadow
Where Wall Street is placing its bets
Until now, Romney has been bankrolled by Wall Street. His top five contributors are people and organizations aligned with Goldman Sachs (GS), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Morgan Stanley (MS), Bank of America (BAC) and Credit Suisse (CS), according to OpenSecrets.org.
But Obama has the momentum. The president raised $114 million in August, more than 40% more than he raised in July. Romney raised $111 million, about the same as he's raised each month this summer.
There are other signs that Wall Street is betting Obama now. LPL Financial's Wall Street Election index, which measures the stock performance of so-called Democrat- and Republican-friendly industries has swung strongly to the Democrats since June.
Intrade, a futures market set up for bettors looking to cash in on such probabilities, has Obama as a 67.8% favorite to reclaim the White House. Obama has seen a nearly 10-point gain since mid-June.
In a perhaps not-so-unrelated bit of news, Intrade predicts the year-end chances of the U.S. entering a recession at 7.35%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average ($DJIA) finishing about 13,000 at 75.8% and a country dropping out of the euro zone at 16.3% -- all of which are highs or close to highs for the year.
Separately, an unscientific CNBC poll of Wall Street pros published Sept. 12 gave Obama a nearly 2-to-1 chance of winning.
They're also reflective of something Huffington Post columnist (and former Wall Street Journal reporter) Mark Gongloff wrote Sept. 14: "It's called hedging your bets. It indicates that although Wall Street might grumble about an Obama victory, it also apparently doesn't expect all commerce to halt and all private industry to be immediately nationalized by the government upon the president's re-inauguration."
Moreover, Obama has been better to Wall Street than either would care to admit: low interest rates, expanded bailouts, monetary easing, watered-down regulations and a lack of prosecution for crisis-era misdeeds.
Would Romney be even kinder? Probably.
Will he win? I know where you can get great odds if you think so.
More from MarketWatch:
MORE ON MSN MONEY
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
"Romney has raised $28.6 million from finance, insurance and real-estate donors. Obama has raised $12.2 million through Aug. 21. But there's a lot of chatter about how the gap has narrowed since then."
Really, you spend the whole article stating that whoever makes the most money out of WS wins the election and Obama is that guy. Then in the last paragraph at the very end you state that Obama is less than half of what Romney is in this "descision point".
I hope that MSN can get some real "journalists" soon and drops the political hacks who post headlines absolutely opposite of the facts. MSN IS NOTHING BUT A SHILL FOR THE DEMOCRATS! Where is the objectivity?
The federal government spends 3.9 trillion, they take in 2.6 trillion and has to borrow 1.3 trillion to keep the government running. To balance the budget America is going to have raise taxes by 50% or cut spending by 35% or a combination of the two. It doesn't make any difference who wins the election we are all going to pay more in taxes.
Another push poll by MSNBC,,,no story, no facts, not one supporting statement or number...just chatter, Nice
"This year is shaping up to be similar. Romney has raised $28.6 million from finance, insurance and real-estate donors. Obama has raised $12.2 million through Aug. 21. But there's a lot of chatter about how the gap has narrowed since then."
You have just been chattered as opposed to being Eastwooded.
So the 'story' here is that Wall Street hedges its bets, giving to Obama too (about half what they give Romney by your own admission) and that this means that the race is over? Quality journalism there buddy. What did you expect? Obama, the incumbrant and in a close race would get zero from Wall Street on the off chance that he might actually pull this one out? Really? So for Romney to, in your opinion, not be toast, Wall Street would have to snub Obama completely. Nice straw man. This is part of a bigger attempt all this week to make people believe a falsehood. That Romney actually is losing. Romney behind? That is the narrative a majority of the press who is in the tank for Obama are trying to make stick. Sadly it does not fit reality. They are even skewing their polls to try and make the narrative fit: 'The polls are specifically designed to drive a narrative that Obama is surging and Romney is struggling. Increasingly, though, the polls are having to go to ridiculous efforts to support this meme. Friday's , for example, uses a D+13 sample of registered voters. This is absurd. In 2008, an historic election wave for Democrats, the electorate was D+7. In 2004, when George W. Bush won reelection, the electorate was evenly split. In other words, D+0. Repeat after me; the Democrat share of the electorate is not going to double this year. Given the well-noted enthusiasm edge for Republicans this year, the electorate is going to be far closer to the 2004 model than 2008. Any poll trying to replicate the 2008 is going to artificially inflate Obama's support.' h
I think that a lot (well not a lot, only 28% support Obama enthusiastically, while 43% are strongly against him, a -15% Republican leaning enthusasm gap according to Rasmussen) but a lot in the press and here will have to take off their cheerleader skirts and drop their pom poms and stare in disbelief as their oversampling of democrat polls do not come true come November. Hell, they may even be hurting themselves. Squishy Obama leaning voters may not even show up thinking that this in the bag.
Of course Wall Street will support any administration that favors printing money ! They alone have benefited from free money, while the rest of us pay higher prices for gas, food, etc. (which by the way hit the middle to lower income folks harder than any, since it consumes a larger % of their income). It's more or less clear that you are trying to report that the rate of Obama fundraising has increased from financial concerns, but it sounds like overall Romney is still far ahead on the total??? Despite your disclaimers to the contrary at the outset of the article, it was pretty clear to me which way you were leaning once you cited a CNBC poll !!! Hilarious.
You sound like a little school boy that is trying to pick a winner so you can feel like a winner.
David, as you know, if Obama wins we all lose. Just think what the stock market will do if Mitt wins and what the outlook will be for the small business owner. Companies will be hiring, people will be paying taxes, handouts will be decreased and the debt will finally head in a downward direction.
Little boy, look at the economy and the average American.
The game isn't over yet. Try not to predict the future, and be a big boy for a change, not a cry baby!!!
Poor Americans - brainwashed from birth - and you suck up all you can be fed!!!!!
Obama - Congress - the Supreme Court - Wall Street, almost all banks, journalists, and too many other groups are destroying this country. It's all about GREED and DECEIT!!!!!!
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] The drive for five continued today and it was a success. For the fifth straight session, the S&P 500 ended lower. Like the previous four sessions, though, the losses were fairly modest in scope. The S&P 500 declined 0.4%, bringing its total loss for the five sessions to 22 points or 1.2%. All in all, that still qualifies as a pretty tame slide considering the S&P 500 had risen 150 points, or 9.1%, over the previous eight weeks.
Today's ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|