Many papers in the academic literature have documented a “Presidential Election” cycle in stock returns. Prior literature also documents that stock returns appear to be influenced by economic policy. The goal of this study is to examine the tools of fiscal and monetary policy to test for the presence of a presidential election cycle. The findings strongly suggest that the presidential election cycle in stock returns and the government’s economic policy influence on stock returns are two separate phenomena. Moreover, it is much more likely that stock returns are influencing economic policy rather than the other way around. However, the findings also suggest that tax legislation may drive the Presidential Election Cycle.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Other studies have searched for a PEC in markets outside of the U.S. For example, Dopke and Pierdzioch (2006) find no evidence of a PEC in German stock returns. In addition, Gartner (1994) takes issue with the work of Alesina (1987) arguing that left (right) of center parties raise (lower) the level of real activity and inflation permanently. Gartner (1994) also provides a brief, but excellent, literature review of the major papers in this line of research.
A similar line of research that documents a “Presidential Cycle” refers to the difference in stock market returns under Republican versus Democratic presidencies. The seminal paper in this line was Santa-Clara and Valkanov (2003) who find excess returns under Democratic presidents.
1972 is chosen as the first year because it is the first year available for the fed funds rate used later in the study. Therefore, all data collection starts with 1972 in order to align all of the time series.
The only surplus years in this sample occurred during the period 1998–2001.
The exact proportion is 36.11%, results not reported. This value is used for the test proportion in the remaining years.
Fiscal policy is chosen because it is the most likely source of the PEC in stock returns. See Drazen (2001) and others.
I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for making this point.
Laws not likely to have a major impact on the economy, such as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act 2 of 1996, were omitted.
Alesina A (1987) Macroeconomic policy in a two-party system as a repeated game. Q J Econ 102:651–678
Allvine FC, O’Neill DE (1980) Stock market returns and the presidential election cycle/implications for market efficiency. Financ Anal J 36:49–56
Becher DA, Jensen GR, Mercer JM (2008) Monetary policy indicators as predictors of stock returns. J Financ Res 31(4):357–379
Bernanke BS, Kuttner KN (2005) What Explains the Stock Market’s Reaction to Federal Reserve Policy? J Finance 60(3):1221–1257
Beyer SB, Jensen GR, Johnson RR (2008) The presidential term. J Portf Manage. 135–142
Black, F. (1971) Implications of the random walk hypothesis for portfolio management. Financ Anal J. 16–22
Booth JR, Booth LC (2003) Is presidential cycle in security returns merely a reflection of business conditions? Rev Financ Econ 12:131–159
Darrat AF (1988) On fiscal policy and the stock market. J Money, Credit Bank 20(3):353–363
Darrat AF (1990) Stock returns, money, and fiscal deficits. J Financ Quant Anal 25:387–398
Dopke J, Pierdzioch C (2006) Politics and the stock market: evidence from Germany. Eur J Polit Econ 22(4):925–943
Drazen A (2001) The political business cycle after 25 years, NBER macroeconomics annual 2000. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 15, pp. 75–117
Gartner M (1994) The quest for political cycles in OCED economies. Eur J Polit Econ 10:427–440
Gartner M, Wellershoff KW (1995) Is there an election cycle in American stock returns? Int Rev Econ Finance 4(4):387–410
Huang R (1985) Common stock returns and presidential elections. Financ Anal J. (March/April):58–61
Johnson RR, Chittenden W, Jensen G (1999) Presidential politics, stocks, bonds, bills and inflation. J Portf Manage 26(1):27–31
Li J, Born JA (2006) Presidential election uncertainty and common stock return in the United States. J Financ Res 29(4):609–622
Nordhaus WD (1975) The political business cycle. Rev Econ Stud 42:169–190
Romer CD, Romer DH (2010) The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks. Am Econ Rev 100:763–801
Santa-Clara P, Valkanov R (2003) The presidential puzzle: political cycles and the stock market. J Finance LVIII(5):1841–1872
Sellin P (2001) Monetary policy and the stock market: theory and empirical evidence. J Econ Surv 15(4):491–541
Stovall RH (1992) Forecasting stock market performance via the presidential cycle. Financ Anal J 48(3):5–8
Sturm RR (2009) The ‘Other’ January effect and the presidential election cycle. Appl Financ Econ 19(17):1355–1364
Thorbecke W (1997) On stock market returns and monetary policy. J Finance 52:635–654
Zhao X, Liano K, Hardin WG III (2004) Presidential election cycles and the turn-of-the-month effect. Soc Sci Q 85(4):958–973
I gratefully acknowledge the very helpful comments from and discussions with Drew B. Winters, participants at the 2009 Financial Management Association’s annual conference, Stuart Michelson and two anonymous referees.
About this article
Cite this article
Sturm, R.R. Economic policy and the presidential election cycle in stock returns. J Econ Finan 37, 200–215 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-011-9179-6
- Stock Returns
- Election Cycle
- Economic Policy
- Tax Legislation