Trump Economy Naysayers Lesson

Reading Instructions: 

• Put Down the iPhones
• Know a 10 Sec. News Sound Byte is not all the Facts
• Read actual Historical Facts on Record
• Learn how to discover the Real Facts for yourself 

Fully understand what President Trump is accomplishing by comparing today's real facts to historial facts from 1843 to 2018 - You be the Judge... Enjoy this article, a real US History lesson!

To Every Thing There Is a Season,                                               But Your Portfolio Shouldn’t Turn                                                   

By: Jason Zweig, Wall Street Journal

Sept. 21, 2018

Every year, as the end of summer approaches, monarch butterflies head for Mexico, birds migrate south for the winter, and financial pundits predict that the stock market is about to crash.

Is the longstanding popular belief that September and October are the worst months for stocks valid?     Yes and no—mostly no.

Yes, some of the worst days in Wall Street’s history have hit during September and October - But that’s no reason to panic.

• On Sept. 24, 1869, the original Black Friday, the price of gold collapsed roughly 20% and took the stock market down with it.

• On Sept. 18, 1873, the investment bank Jay Cooke & Co. suspended payments, setting off a series of bank failures that triggered one of the worst depressions in U.S. history.

•  On Oct. 16, 1907, a busted speculation in copper led to a run on some of New York’s biggest banks, sparking a panic that ended only when J.P. Morgan personally intervened—ultimately leading to the creation of the Federal Reserve.

• On Oct. 28, 1929, “Black Monday,” the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 12.8% in the crash that set the stage for the Great Depression.

•  On Oct. 19, 1987, the Dow fell 22.6%, the worst daily loss in its history.

• On Sept. 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers failed, ushering in the darkest days of the global financial crisis.

Is this destiny, or just random variation?

According to William Schwert, a finance professor at the University of Rochester who studies the history of asset prices, September does have the lowest average return of any month. From 1834 (the earliest date for broad market data) through 2018, September is the only month whose average return is negative -- at minus 0.4%.

Why Do You Think They Call It 'Fall'? The U.S. stock market has, on average, earned its lowest monthly returns in September. That might be a predictable result of less sunlight and colder weather–or it might just be a random fluctuation. Average returns on U.S. stocks between 1946–2018 by month. Source: G. William Schwert, University of Rochester

But the differences across months have been small, so you shouldn’t read much into September’s relatively poor historical average return, cautions Prof. Schwert.

Over the long run, December has the best average monthly return, at nearly 1.4%, with January close behind at 1.2%. The variations “don’t have much economic significance,” says Prof. Schwert.

As for October, its returns are positive on average, at 0.4% since 1834. Since 2002, October is the third-best month, with an average 1.6% return -- even though the S&P 500 lost nearly a fifth of its value in October 2008.

So investors’ fear of September and October is based less on evidence and more on what psychologists call “availability”—the human tendency to judge how likely an event is by how easily we can recall vivid examples of it. The horrific losses of October 2008 are hard to forget. The milder gains of 7% in October 2015 and 11% in October 2011 are hard to remember.

Investors might be more prone to worry this time of year, though. Researchers have found in numerous independent studies that as summer fades into fall, people’s behavior does turn with the leaves. As the hours of daylight dwindle, brain chemistry can change, reshaping how much risk some people are willing to take.

In his 1903 book, “The ABC of Stock Speculation,” the financial chronicler Samuel Armstrong Nelson wrote: “Speculators are not disposed to trade as freely and confidently in wet and stormy weather as they are during the dry days when the sun is shining, and mankind cheerful and optimistic.” 

Investors trading options are more likely to expect losses in fall than in spring or winter. In the U.S., Canada and Australia, mutual-fund shareholders are all net sellers in their respective fall months, even though Australia’s autumn runs from March through May and it has a different tax year. 

Average returns on U.S. Treasuries appear to be higher in fall than in spring, suggesting that investors seek safety in the darker months. Stock analysts’ earnings forecasts are less optimistic in fall and winter than in spring and summer. 

Across more than 150 years of data, bidders at fine-art auctions paid more, on average, for paintings sold on longer, sunnier days than they did on shorter, darker days. Even players in the National Football League tend to be more aggressive in games played on hot days than on cool days. 

Of course, not all investing decisions are driven by psychology. Nowadays, people might tend to sell stocks in the fall in order to fund tuition payments coming due in September or to pay off credit-card debt they racked up on summer vacations. They might invest more in the first quarter of the year after pocketing year-end bonuses and tax refunds.

Still, “if bad news comes out in the fall, many investors may react more extremely than they might a few months later or earlier, when daylight is more plentiful,” says Lisa Kramer, a finance professor at the University of Toronto who has run several studies on how seasonal mood changes may affect financial behavior.

Although the stock market doesn’t always crash in the fall, you might well be more likely this time of year to treat smaller declines as harbingers of doom. Try, instead, to remember that the darkest months of the year often have the brightest returns.

Write to Jason Zweig at intelligentinvestor@wsj.com 

A Real Spin in an Airplane - A Tall Tale of a Story

THE GULFSTREAM G550

LEGENDARY QUALITY, FLEXIBLE PERFORMANCE

The G550 has the efficiency to fly 6,750 nautical miles/12,501 kilometers nonstop, but also is capable of operating out of short-field, high-altitude airports. Payload is a plus, too. The G550 can transport up to 18 passengers and still has the range to fly nonstop more than 12 hours.

The Whole Story

Famous Quotes:  …You already know the end of the stories!

• ·         Obama said, "You can keep your plan & your Dr." ... 
• ·         Bill said, "I did not have sex with that woman"…
• ·         Hillary said, "It's a video that started the attack that killed the Ambassador" …
• ·         Loretta said, “We talked for half an hour about grandkids and golf”…

A Field-base operator (FBO) is a commercial business granted the right by an airport to operate on the airport and provide aeronautical services such as fueling and parking. Unidentified personnel who worked at the FBO in Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport called a TV anchor at the local ABC Station who verified the meeting. A second independent source at the airport said Loretta and Bill were alone together on board AG Loretta Lynch’s jet for half an hour.

Question: Why would AG Loretta Lynch go to Phoenix first which is 600 miles South of Aspen and then go North to Aspen from Phoenix? Anyone check on the actual flight plans of both planes?

Well, let’s see... AG Loretta Lynch was headed to Aspen, Co from Washington DC for a speaking engagement, a distance of around 1500 miles in almost a direct line from East to West. The Government plane she was flying in was more than likely a G550 with a range of 6750 miles.

She did not need to stop in Phoenix for fuel because if she would have flown direct, fuel would not be necessary. In fact, if you do the math, the G550 has the range to make that direct round trip route without refueling.

Question: Why was Bill Clinton’s plane waiting for AG Loretta Lynch’s plane to land in Phoenix when she was going to Aspen?

Also remember now, AG Loretta Lynch does not have any grandkids and doesn’t play golf. ...Hmmn!

The meeting was either planned to put the Clinton Fix on or to decide on which golf course Bill played on in Phoenix.

 

How to Separate the Beef from the Bun for a Cheaper Burger!

Workers have a beef about their pay at McDonald’s, so McDonald's recently came out with their answer to those that demand  $15 per hr pay.  ...Robots! 

This month in Europe, McDonald’s hired 7,000 touch screen cashiers. Of course when this happens, like it did in Los Angeles, the unskilled workers will lose their jobs.

 

This is exactly what the left pushed for, but Fast food chains were never meant to be a place for someone to raise a family of 6. They were to be part time positions with some full-time advancements.  Most fast food jobs were intended for school aged kids to learn how to be responsible, interact with people, and have a real job that offers a wage. The part time position was not intended as full time employment to support a family.

"Obama, We Deserve a Break Today!" - McDonald's

Obama with AFL-CIO Union Pres. Dick TrumpkaJust when you think Obama is done tearing down all of the
  basic structures within this country, now you can also count on your Big Mac cheeseburgers, crispy Chicken McNuggetts, French fries and sodas costing more money to buy--just "Look for the Union label" on your check!

The National  Labor Relations Board, NLRB, begins an attack on the franchising business model. The franchiser/franchisee relationship is built upon a division of roles and responsibilities. Due to this unique system in which the franchiser licenses its exclusive brand, the franchisee operates as an independent business at one or more locations.

Generally, after an initial licensing fee, a royalty off the top-line or gross sales is levied to compensate the franchiser, not a share of the franchisee profits. It is up to the franchisee who generates the bottom line, the net profits, to determine how efficiently he manages his direct and indirect costs. These can either make or break a business start-up and possibly discourage a business investment before it is even started. So what would cause those actions?

Since a tremendously large group of franchisees are in the 'fast food' industry, the obvious overhead costs are the building lease and improvements, equipment, furniture, packaging supplies, uniforms and of course, the food and beverage provisioner. All of these items affect the bottom line, but they remain fairly consistent predictable percentages at fluctuating sales volumes. The truly onerous outlier cost is labor. The ability to balance the personnel levels with the proper service levels for consistent customer satisfaction is paramount to maximizing profits while assuring return patronage. 

Currently franchisees choose who they hire, how many are hired, their wages and benefits, their training, the labor practices as union or non-union employees, how to conduct employee evaluations for decisions on promotion, discipline or separation. Franchisers are not directly involved in any personnel decisions in practice nor do they have the contractual authority. The franchisees act in daily operations, under legal terms, as solely independent small businesses.

McDonalds received a devastating decision this week which may affect all franchiser/franchisee relations.

The National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, ruled that McDonald's could be treated in labor complaints as a joint employer of its franchisee workers which affects every small business owner. Now, the franchiser would have to monitor and review all franchisee labor decisions which would add cost to the franchisee.

NOTE: Up to now, this labor mechanism is what makes or breaks the franchisee since the franchiser takes his cut from the top gross sales figures; so then after labor costs are deducted, the franchisee takes his cut or income from the bottom line net profit.

By U.S. government agency fiat the franchisers find themselves unable to now control their increased overhead costs of their added labor management oversight unless by lowering employee wages to create any net profits for the franchisee. The lower wages invites in union organizers to strike for higher worker wages as unions have always dreamed of unionizing restaurant workers nationwide.

The current AFL-CIO union membership is 12 Million and shrinking while desperate for any new blood. All federal, state and local fair labor practices and laws are in effect now, not like in the old days that the unions once battled--those fights are over. The old unionization days are in the past for many experienced workers today that see no future in paying dues as free market pricing and labor wages have reached parity with competitive employment to bid up income with benefits to acceptable levels. 

The big downside is many franchisee businesses with entry low-level jobs will become unprofitable due to union wage hikes and Obamacare as jobs are cut back or lost as they shut down as unskilled workers will be hurt by NRLB regulations.

The AFL-CIO and Obama have the most to gain with added union membership dues and contributions. Historically union members overwhelmingly vote a democrat ticket, so dues are disproportionately directed into the democrat party political fundraising coffers. 

The Dues Scam: The dues monies are profits unjustly fleeced from the pockets of the small business owners, paid to the union members as higher taxable wages, paid to the union as membership dues and paid to the Democrat National Committee, DNC party machine as political contributions. Note: Employee wages are subject to any local, state and federal taxes and the Democrat political contributions are non-taxable donations to DNC. They pay NO taxes for the dues money. 

California, Here it Comes...Down As It is Done!

I can really empathize about state government regulatory burdens on Californians after living there for over fifty-six years and have since moved to Dallas, Texas. I cannot, however, sympathise with the state residents resolve to keep spending beyond their means. I recently read an Editorial in the Wall Street Journal written by Dr. Bradley Allen who is currently running for Congress in California's 24th District in the Republican race. He had lamented, "We Californians could learn how to grow from the Lone Star State." It called out a list of successes for his former home state of Texas [Houston] while then offering a whole litany of reasons for their failure in California.

The California vs. Texas comparison that Dr. Allen pointed to were: 

• Energy Industry - no fracking and horizontal drilling in gas and oil fields.

• State Business Income Tax - high at 4.1% (av. CA state rate)

• Utility Costs - electricity 50% to 88% higher for renewable-energy mandate.  

• Gasoline - 70 to 80 cents per gallon more due to CA state blending fuel laws.

• Job Growth - Los Angeles added 1 Mil people (1980-2010) & lost 165K jobs.

• Poor People - 42%+ in CA than TX. 17.6% L.A. poverty rate nation's highest.

• Regulatory laws - so overly burdensome they had driven business out of state.

What's truly remarkable about this editorial was it thoroughly covered the glaring differences with solid indisputable facts. It further argued quite forcefully for pro-growth policies that would spur on the California economy. I was absolutely sold on his editorial analysis until I read the last paragraph. It succinctly encapsulated in just a few sentences why California will remain moribund in its own excrement, not capable to escape its inevitable demise:

Dr. Allen stated besides the cited state parallels, he complained about job creation killers like Obamacare which must be addressed; or with respect to the onerous business Federal income tax of 35% with equally high small business S-Corp income tax, they restrict business expansion and affect job growth. He further complained about Federal regulations and energy costs too. His recommendation was, "Washington should follow Texas' lead and pass pro-growth reforms."..."It's not big verses small government. It's government that works for us not against us." [No Bradley, you are wrong. Take off your 'rose-colored' California glasses. It really is BIG government spending that does works against us.] 

The typical 'California dreaming' syndrome promotes government largess as the answer to all social problems and civil matters. If the undocumented illegal aliens need welfare or legal services the state provides them. If special interests need funding for projects the state provides them. If the state needs more monies to meet these budgetary demands the state floats new tax bonds or just passes tax increases.

The 2013 overall California state budget deficit has ballooned to $778 Billion plus unfunded state pension funds for $200 Billion. That's almost a Trillion dollars. Is this state looking at a 'too big to fail' Federal bailout? It's a possibility for a bankruptcy filing with a Washington style bailout as the California legislature's spending spree on the backs of state taxpayers is painfully coming down to a bitter showdown for a default and bond credit rating downgrade to junk.

Why do other states have to suffer to 'Bail Out' California for their free-spending programs?  Let them Go Bankrupt!