U.S. stocks steady before election

“U.S. stocks swayed between small gains and losses on Monday with investors reluctant to make major moves a day ahead of the U.S. presidential election,” Kate Gibson reports for MarketWatch.

“The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 9.52 points to 13,102.6. The S&P 500 index added nearly 2 points to 1,416.04, with utilities leading sector declines and energy the best performing,” Gibson reports. “Apple Inc.gained [1.38%] after it sold 3 million units of its iPad mini and fourth-generation iPad during the product’s first weekend… The Nasdaq Composite climbed 12.79 points to 2,994.92. Advancers and decliners ran nearly even on the New York Stock Exchange, where 389 million shares traded by 3:20 p.m. Eastern. Composite volume topped 2.2 billion.”

Gibson reports, “‘Stocks rallied over the summer as the likelihood of an Obama victory appeared greater. Once Romney gained momentum in the fall, stocks have been left wondering who might win and have ended up trading mostly sideways to negative,’ said Andrew Fitzpatrick, director of investments at Hinsdale Associates. Jeffrey Kleintop, chief market strategist at LPL Financial, had a similar take. ‘The stock market has priced in a close election compared with where it was a month ago ahead of the debates. As the race has tightened over the past month, the market has slipped while Republican-favored industries have outperformed Democrat-favored industries.'”

Read more in the full article here.

Related article:
5 iPhone apps for U.S. Election Day 2012 – November 5, 2012


      1. It’s not so much the iPad rather that they can vote online (iPad, computer). There also stories of people being told they can vote via their smart phone or that the election in on Nov 7; of course the people they target are predominately Latin, black and elderly democrats.

  1. So, the sales of a Mac or iOS device is moved by a Republican or Democrat in the White House? Who new!

    What does this have to do with AAPL? Idiots. Other forces are moving AAPL and it doesn’t belong at this low a price.

    1. The election of a President, based on his pro or anti business policies can certainly effect the stock market. The sales of iOS devices are not the entire stock market. The price of AAPL, as you say, has many factors (mysterious ones at that) effecting it. The outcome of the election could just be one more if the entire market begins to retreat in the wake of an Obama win.

      I tend to think this has already factored in as the media is so busy telling us that Obama is going to win (no bias at all) that
      there will be no major drop if he wins, and no serious bounce if Romney wins.

    1. Don’t worry,

      Unless the Windows based eVoting machines are rigged to steal the election, Obama will KO Willard RobbedMe.

      BTW- Hart InterCivic is now controlled by Bain peeps.

      From HuffPo article
      “H.I.G. Capital’s co-founder, Anthony Tamer, previously worked at Bain & Company, the global consulting giant where Romney was once CEO. Eight of the company’s managing directors came from Bain as well. Tamer and his wife are major Romney donors, having each contributed $50,000 to the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future. Tamer has also donated $75,000 to the Romney Victory Fund.

      And Tamer has plenty of company at H.I.G. Although it isn’t a particularly big firm, H.I.G.’s directors have collectively given so much money to Romney that their company is the sixth biggest contributor to all Romney committees, as calculated by opensecrets.org.

      Almost all of their 2012 contributions, in fact, went either to Romney or to the Republican National Committee.”

      Hart InterCivic machines are used in Cincinnati, Ohio among other places.

    2. T Mac,
      I have my deep preferences for the election, but if they don’t win, I remember Goya, Picasso, Dumas, Einstein, the Shakespeare author, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Cervantes, etc, all lived through crises of politics, culture, and leadership. They just kept doing their work no matter what. Don’t lose sleep.

  2. http://amberlyonlive.com/2012/10/16/president-obama-has-turned-journalists-into-criminals/

    The Obama administration is suffocating investigative journalism at an alarming rate through the abuse of the Espionage Act of 1917, an act more prone to be used to protect government secrecy than national security. Before Obama, the act had been used only three times total since 1917. The current administration has used it six times to go after whistleblowers and the journalists who protect and reveal their information.

    President Obama was bold enough to use the Espionage Act to subpoena New York Times journalist James Risen in an attempt to force him to ‘give up’ information on a CIA whistleblower. Risen accused the administration of trying to silence journalists and refused to acquiesce stating,

    “Can you have a democracy without aggressive investigative journalism? I don’t believe you can, and that’s why I’m fighting.”

    Risen predicted Obama’s attack against him would have an unprecedented chilling effect on mainstream investigative journalism in the US. He was right.

    I was on the brunt end of the Obama-generated censorship while employed at CNN as an investigative correspondent.
    On at least a weekly basis, and to my constant frustration, my superiors and CNN’s lawyers were quick to remind me that we need to be extra careful because “President Obama has gone after more journalists and whistleblowers than any president in history”. The leash around my neck began to tighten.

    Whether I was allowed to embark on future stories or even interview sensitive sources for potential investigations, eventually became an ‘Obama subpoena risk assessment’ and potential court cost calculation, rather than a pure evaluation of the report’s contribution to public good or our journalistic duty to cover the story.

    Some of my most crucial investigations were killed before they started because they were too high a risk of an Obama subpoena.

    One boss told me quote “we know how the FBI feels about your source, if we have information the FBI will want we become a target”.

    David Carr of The New York Times noted Obama’s war on journalism may have more to do with secrecy than national security and is harming press freedom in the U.S.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.