The results of a recent survey of 1000 US investors by investment firm Edward Jones carry some remarkable findings.
Most strikingly, 90 per cent of Americans plan to make changes to their savings and investment strategies over the next six months. Why? The presidential election is the most-cited reason. Just 5 per cent plan on staying the course over the next six months.
You know this is going to end badly. Yes, the survey results are suspiciously askew. Surveys can be flawed. And some investors may say one thing but do another.
How to respond to uncertainty
Should investors be actively changing investment strategies in response to external factors? Many advisers would say so. The carbon and mining taxes are on the agenda for the next federal election. Health insurers and private hospitals were under threat from recent changes to the means-testing of the private health insurance rebate.
We can likely take some pointers from previous US presidential elections.
During the 1996 presidential election, market commentators recommended following a time-tested trend. "Investors would be wise to adjust their portfolios, depending on who wins the presidency in November," The News Tribune wrote that year.
It continued: "Studies have shown that small stocks usually fare better under Democratic administrations and bigger stocks fare better under the Republicans. Research by Tacoma's Frank Russell Co and Liberty Financial Cos of Boston has drawn the same conclusion. So, the message is clear: If Bill Clinton wins, think small; if Bob Dole wins, think big."
How'd it work? In the four years following President Clinton's win, small-cap stocks underperformed large caps by more than half. In the succeeding eight years of Republican President George W. Bush's time in office, small-cap stocks outperformed by a factor of two. Anyone following the advisors' strategy would have dramatically underperformed a broad index for more than a decade - and that's before trading fees.
It gets worse from there
During the 2000 presidential election, Newsweek wrote that a win by George Bush and the ensuing tax changes could "help banks, brokers and other investment firms". By the end of Bush's second term, the KBW Bank Index had dropped almost 80 per cent.
Another analyst from The Money Channel gave a bullish endorsement of airline stocks if Bush won the election, noting that "a broad tax cut ... has the tendency to increase discretionary spending". By 2005, four of the six largest US airlines were in bankruptcy.
"There's an [easy] way to put your money on the November contest: buy some stocks," another Newsweek article counselled before the 2000 election. "The US stock market hasn't lost money in a presidential-election year since 1940." But then it did in two of the next three election years.
Analysts lined up in 2008 to offer their recommendations before election day. Mad Money's Jim Cramer wrote: "An Obama victory would also be good for solar and wind power. My No. 1 solar pick would be First Solar, the only company in the field with a product that's commercially viable." The bulk of solar stocks have since collapsed, with First Solar down 93 per cent.
If Obama won, Cramer went on to caution, "because of all the negative rhetoric, you'd have to trim both the major oils, like ExxonMobil and Chevron, and the big drillers, like Schlumberger and Transocean". A basket of the four has gained more than 60 per cent since Obama took office.
He wasn't alone. The idea that an Obama presidency would be a boon to green energy and a strike to big oil was nearly universal. Reality, as it has a tendency of doing, has proven quite the opposite.
Jimmy Carter warned in 1980 that Ronald Reagan's tax policies would hurt the economy. Instead, it boomed. Ronald Reagan warned in 1993 that Bill Clinton's tax policies would hurt the economy. Instead, it boomed.
You can go on and on. When it comes to presidential elections and your investments, there's only one constant: Those who make specific predictions about the effects of policy tend to lose.
None of this should be surprising. Political scientist Anthony Downs once noted that "politicians don't get elected to formulate policy; they formulate policy to get elected". That's a polite way of saying that politicians will say anything to get elected, and then avoid the hard stuff once in office.
What should you be doing rather than fiddling with a new strategy? Nothing different from the usual. If you're like the 90 per cent of American investors who are planning to change your investment strategy based on short-term events or prognostications, stop and take a good look at reality, your priorities, and your abilities. You couldn't see the future before the last federal election. You can't see it today.
Are you looking for attractive dividend stock ideas? BusinessDay readers can click here to request a new free report titled Secure Your Future with 3 Rock-Solid Dividend Stocks.
Morgan Housel is a Motley Fool contributor. You can follow The Motley Fool on Twitter @TheMotleyFoolAu. The Motley Fool's purpose is to educate, amuse and enrich investors. This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 400691). Authorised by Bruce Jackson.