Political Neutrality

One of the most important pieces of advice Jeff can offer to an investor is never to let politics interfere with making money. This is a consistently recurring theme here at A Dash, and for that reason we have created Politically Agnostic page, shown at length below:

I
am a firm believer in the ability to make money no matter who controls
the White House or which party has a majority in Congress. Rather, my
approach to investing focuses on making rational decisions based on the
reality of the political situation. I have a category dedicated to politics, but my post Will the Democrats Lose Control of the House? (April 22, 2010) is a particularly good place to start.

“Do not allow your political opinions to interfere with sound investment decisions. 
Join me in being politically agnostic — willing to make money no
matter who is in power.  Remember that the stock market has done very
well (or poorly) with various combinations of partisan control .  This
is the most important rule.”

Back during the healthcare reform process (December 1, 2009), I used realistic analysis methods to my advantage – and encouraged others to do the same.

“From
my perspective, trying to help investors, the analysis of health care
legislation has not been very good…The Wall Street firms and the
media alike have really cut back on staffing, so there are few genuine
experts in political science who are working on this problem.  This
makes it an opportunity for investors with some real insight.”

Perhaps the clearest example of my politically agnostic approach to making money is my piece How I Pick Stocks (October 14, 2007). Put very simply:

“The government is on a mission.  You may not like the policies, but as an investor, you fight it at your peril.”

I elaborated on this point in Politics, Ideology, and Investing (July 22, 2009), which I particularly like because a very conservative expert is quoted using an analytic framework similar to my own:

“But
my main message here is that critics of the stimulus bill don't serve
their side of the debate well by judging it against unreasonable
standards. I've heard some politicians say before actual working
cameras that the stimulus package must be judged a failure because
unemployment has risen further since it was enacted. Some have
expressly ridiculed the counter-factual argument regarding what might
have been. Such politicians and pundits are making it harder for me to
stay on their side by insulting my intelligence and the intelligence of
the American people. Their case would be stronger if they stuck to
legitimate arguments, and they wouldn't look so foolish.”

The
varying degrees of misinformation found in the blogosphere and on TV
often barrage the average investor into a state of financial paralysis.
I examined this phenomenon in Individual Investors and the Information Barrier (July 16, 2009).

“The
opposing pundits see no hope for any success. The ‘supporting’ pundits
think that Obama has not gone far enough. The impression for the
individual investor is that nothing will work.”

In my post How to Make Money on Barney Frank (June 11, 2009),
I used the highly controversial congressman allegorically by
contrasting how the media covers him with how he is regarded by
financial experts. I quote an article by Aaron Elstein on Frank:

“Of
course, it also behooves bankers to play nice with Mr. Frank. Asked if
bankers have come to grips with new realities, he tartly answers: ‘I
think they understand a new set of regulations is coming. And it's
better to sit down and get it right than get it wrong.’”