Stocks and Bonds

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why Midterm Election Years Are Tough for the Stock Market

      by

      These months are historically the weakest for the market in a presidential term. Aside from coincidence, there are several possible explanations.The stock market’s decline and the tightening of financial conditions that have accompanied it since the start of the year are unique to 2022.The effects of the coronavirus pandemic, roaring inflation and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are emphatically different from anything that had come before.Yet for stock market mavens who have read up on the four-year presidential election cycle, what is occurring in the markets looks quite familiar. This is a midterm election year, after all, and numbers going back more than a century show that the second year has generally been the weakest for the stock market in a president’s term.“Investors may take solace in the fact that the market has been here many times before,” Ed Clissold and Than Nguyen, two analysts for Ned Davis Research, an independent financial research firm, wrote in a recent report on the presidential cycle.The NumbersThe market soared early in Donald J. Trump’s presidency, but it hit a wall in 2018 — the midterm year — and at one point gave up 18.8 percent of its gains, according to Ned Davis Research’s tabulation of Dow Jones industrial average data.Similarly, the Dow rose smartly early in President Biden’s term, only to decline more than 12 percent at its trough so far this year, again according to Dow data.This rough pattern isn’t a constant throughout history, but it has occurred quite frequently in presidencies going back to 1900. After a weak stretch in the midterm year, the stock market has usually rallied.Consider the numbers. These are the median annualized returns from 1900 through 2021, freshly tabulated by Ned Davis Research for the different years of a presidential term, using the Dow:12.7 percent for Year 1.3.1 percent for Year 2, the midterm year.14.8 percent for Year 3, the pre-election year.7.4 percent for Year 4, the election year.The market soared early in President Donald J. Trump’s presidency, but it hit a wall in 2018.Doug Mills/The New York TimesNed Davis Research ran the numbers a second time, for 1948 through 2021, using the S&P 500 and a predecessor index. The S&P 500 is a broader proxy for the overall U.S. stock market than the Dow, but it has a shorter history. While the details were different, the pattern remained the same:12.9 percent for Year 1.6.2 percent for Year 2.16.7 percent for Year 3.7.3 percent for Year 4.But Why?Why the midterm year — and, in particular, the first half of the year — is often a weak period for stocks is unclear. It could be a series of coincidences; establishing cause rather than correlation, especially over such a long period, is impossible.Yet many researchers in the academic world and on Wall Street have examined the numbers and concluded that the pattern of midterm year weakness, and greater strength for stocks later in the presidential cycle, is fascinating enough to merit further study. “The pattern is hard to ignore,” Roger D. Huang wrote in a 1985 paper in the Financial Analysts Journal.A Guide to the 2022 Midterm ElectionsMidterms Begin: The Texas primaries officially opened the 2022 election season. See the full primary calendar.In the Senate: Democrats have a razor-thin margin that could be upended with a single loss. Here are the four incumbents most at risk.In the House: Republicans and Democrats are seeking to gain an edge through redistricting and gerrymandering, though this year’s map is poised to be surprisingly fairGovernors’ Races: Georgia’s contest will be at the center of the political universe, but there are several important races across the country.Key Issues: Inflation, the pandemic, abortion and voting rights are expected to be among this election cycle’s defining topics.He noted another puzzling fact. Although Republicans tend to be portrayed as the party of business, the stock market generally prefers Democrats — an affinity sustained for a long time. From 1901 through February, for example, and adjusted for inflation, the Dow returned 3.8 percent annualized under Democratic presidents, versus 1.4 percent under Republicans, Ned Davis Research found.Furthermore, based on the historical data, the best political alignment for the stock market is one that could arise this November if the Democratic Party has a major setback. Since 1901, a Democratic president combined with Republican control of both houses of Congress has produced annualized real stock returns of 8 percent, using the Dow.Aside from sheer coincidence, there are several possible explanations for the presidential cycle and, specifically, for the typical midterm swoon and recovery in the last half of a presidential term.Presidents as PoliticiansIn an interview, Mr. Clissold, the chief U.S. strategist for Ned Davis Research, noted that the stock market abhors uncertainty. It is well understood that most often, the president’s party loses ground in midterm congressional elections. But that limited insight early in a president’s second year only makes it harder to make bets on the direction of policymaking in Washington.“That could all be weighing on the market in a cyclical pattern,” he said.There is another common theory, one that I find appealing because it does not flatter the political establishment. Yale Hirsch, who began describing the presidential cycle in the annual Stock Trader’s Almanac in 1968, explained it to me more than a decade ago.The theory starts with the premise that even the best presidents are, first and foremost, politicians. As such, they use all available levers to ensure that they — or their designated successors — are elected.The Dow gained 89.2 percent during the first half of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term.Corbis, via Getty ImagesThese efforts often contribute to strong stock market returns leading up to presidential elections, when it is in presidents’ greatest interest to stimulate the economy.In the first half of a presidential term, however, when the White House and Congress get down to the mundane business of governing, there is frequently a compelling need to pare down government spending or to encourage (substitute “pressure,” if you prefer) the nominally independent Federal Reserve to raise interest rates and restrict economic growth. The best time to inflict pain is when a presidential election is still a few years away, or so the theory goes.As Mr. Hirsch told me back then, it’s good politics “to get rid of the dirty stuff in the economy as quickly as possible,” an exercise in fiscal and monetary restraint that tends to depress stock market returns in the second year of a presidential cycle.That would be where we are now.Where Biden StandsThrough March, despite the bad stretch in the market this year, stock returns have been comparatively good during the Biden presidency, with a cumulative gain in the Dow of 12.1 percent, well above the median of 8.1 percent since 1901. In the equivalent period, the Dow under Mr. Trump gained 22.2 percent.Both performances were vastly behind those of the leaders, according to Ned Davis Research. The top three, from inauguration through March 31 of their second year in office, were:Franklin D. Roosevelt in his first term, 89.2 percent.Ronald Reagan in his second term, 48.2 percent.Barack Obama in his first term, 31.1 percent.What are we to make of all this?Well, the pattern of the presidential cycle suggests that the market will begin to rebound late this year and rally next year — the best one, historically. That result is unlikely, though, if the Federal Reserve’s fight against inflation plunges the economy into a recession, as some forecasters, including those at Deutsche Bank, are predicting.I wouldn’t count on any of these predictions or patterns. As an investor, I’m doing my usual thing, buying low-cost index funds that mirror the broad market and hanging on for the long term.But I’ll keep looking for patterns anyway. The pageantry of American politics and stock market returns is a compelling spectacle, even when none of the expected outcomes come true. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      The Stock Market Loves Biden More Than Trump. So Far, at Least.

      by

      Stocks have soared under the new president, and the Dow has generally preferred Democrats since 1901. But don’t count on that for the future.From the moment he was elected president in 2016 through his failed campaign for re-election, Donald J. Trump invoked the stock market as a report card on the presidency.The market loved him, Mr. Trump said, and it hated Democrats, particularly his opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr. During the presidential debate in October, Mr. Trump warned of Mr. Biden: “If he’s elected, the market will crash.” In a variety of settings, he said that Democrats would be a disaster and that a victory for them would set off “a depression,” which would make the stock market “disintegrate.”So far, it hasn’t turned out that way.To the extent that the Dow Jones industrial average measures the stock market’s affection for a president, its early report card says the market loves President Biden’s first days in office considerably more than it loved those of President Trump.Mr. Biden would get an A for this early period; Mr. Trump would receive a B for the market performance during his first days as president, though he would get a higher mark for much of the rest of his term.From Election Day through Thursday, the Dow rose about 26 percent, compared with 14 percent for the same period four years ago. Amid signs that the United States is recovering briskly from the pandemic, early returns for Mr. Biden’s actual time in office have also been exceptional. The stock market’s rise from its close on Inauguration Day to its close on Thursday marked the best start for any presidency since that of another Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson.For those too young to remember the awful day of Nov. 22, 1963, Johnson, the vice president, was sworn in as president that afternoon after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Measuring stock market performance from the end of the day they were all sworn into office allows us to include Johnson as well as Theodore Roosevelt, who became president on Sept. 14, 1901, after President William McKinley died of gunshot wounds.The Republican Party has long claimed that it is the party of business, and that Republican rule is better for stocks. But the historical record demonstrates that the market has generally performed better under Democratic presidents since the start of the 20th century.Over all, the market under President Biden ranks third for all presidents during a comparable time in office since 1901, according to a tally through Thursday (the Biden administration’s 109th day) by Paul Hickey, co-founder of Bespoke Investment Group.These are the top performers:Franklin D. Roosevelt, inaugurated March 4, 1933: 78.1 percent.Johnson, inaugurated Nov. 22, 1963: 13.8 percent.Mr. Biden, inaugurated Jan. 20, 2021: 10.8 percent.William H. Taft, inaugurated March 4, 1909: 9.6 percent.Note that three of the top four — Roosevelt, Johnson and Mr. Biden — were Democrats. That fits an apparent pattern. Since 1900, the median stock market gain for Democrats for the start of their presidencies is 7.9 percent; for Republicans, only 2.7 percent.By contrast, the Dow gained 5.8 percent in Mr. Trump’s first days as president. That was a strong return for a Republican, but not quite up to snuff for a Democrat.Now consider longer-term returns — how the Dow performed over the duration of all presidencies, starting in 1901. Again, the market did better under Democrats, with a 6.7 percent gain, annualized, compared with 3.5 percent under Republicans.Using this metric, the Trump administration looks much better, placing fourth among all presidencies.These are the annualized returns for the top-ranking presidents:25.5 percent under Calvin Coolidge, a Republican, in the Roaring Twenties.15.9 percent under Bill Clinton, a Democrat.12.1 percent under Barack Obama, a Democrat.12.0 percent under President Trump.That’s an extraordinarily good market performance under Mr. Trump, when you recall that it includes the stock market collapse of late February and March last year as the world reeled from the coronavirus.The market recovered rapidly once the Federal Reserve jumped in on March 23, 2020, and in response to emergency aid programs enacted by Congress. But neither the market, nor the economy, nor the pandemic improved sufficiently in 2020 to win President Trump another term.As for President Biden, he is undoubtedly benefiting from the upward trajectory in the economy and the markets that started under his predecessor — much as President Trump benefited from the growing economy bequeathed him by President Obama.It doesn’t always work that way. In the Great Depression, the market roared in Franklin Roosevelt’s first 100 days. He offered a hopeful contrast — and a stark break — with his immediate predecessor, Herbert Hoover, who presided over what was then the worst stock market crash in modern history. During Hoover’s four years in office, the Dow lost 35.6 percent annualized, by far the worst performance of any president.The market’s recent boom can be easily explained. Back in July, I cited an investment analysis that suggested the stock market might perform quite well in a Biden presidency, despite Mr. Trump’s claims to the contrary. Those factors included more vigorous and efficient management of the coronavirus crisis, which would promote economic recovery and corporate profits; generous fiscal stimulus programs, with the possibility of colossal infrastructure-building; a return to international engagement accompanied by a reduction in trade friction; and a renewal of America’s global climate-change commitments.So far, that analysis is holding up. But will it lead to strong returns through the Biden administration?I have no idea. Alas, none of this tells us where the stock market is heading. All we know is that it has risen more than it has fallen over the long run, but has moved fairly randomly, day to day, and has sometimes veered into long declines. Another decline could happen at any time, regardless of what any president does.The only approach to investing I’d actively embrace is passive: using low-cost stock and bond index funds to build a well-diversified portfolio and hang on for the long run. And I’d try to ignore the exhortations of politicians, especially those who would tie their own electoral fortunes to the performance of the stock market. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      How Sustainable Is the Rally in Renewable Energy Stocks?

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyHow Sustainable Is the Rally in Renewable Energy Stocks?Solar and wind power companies have soared in value. Are they in a bubble or in a virtuous upward cycle?Installing solar panels on a rooftop in Fort Greene, Brooklyn. Solar power is the cheapest source of electricity in many countries, according to the International Energy Agency.Credit…Karsten Moran for The New York TimesJan. 14, 2021Updated 1:50 p.m. ETThe overall stock market was fabulous last year, but as investors focused on climate change, renewable energy stocks did even better.Consider that while the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, which tracks the benchmark S&P 500, returned 18.37 percent in 2020, the Invesco Solar E.T.F., which tracks an index of solar energy stocks, soared 233.95 percent, according to Morningstar Direct. The Invesco WilderHill E.T.F., which invests more broadly in alternative energy of various types, rose 204.83 percent.Returns like those are so strong that they are unlikely to be replicated: It is possible that the stocks of companies engaged in carbon-free energy production are already in a bubble. Jason Bloom, head of fixed income and alternative E.T.F.s for Invesco, describes the sector this way: “I would call it rational optimism in view of improving fundamentals.”The International Energy Agency recently called solar-generated energy the “cheapest” electricity source in many countries. In the United States, it accounts for just 3 percent of energy output, but it is increasing rapidly. Wind power, which now supplies roughly 8 percent of domestic energy, has also been growing. There is plenty of room for expansion for many renewable energy companies.The results of the presidential election have already bolstered the returns of these companies, too. While President Trump has promoted the use of fossil fuels like coal, President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. has advocated a $2 trillion climate plan to “achieve a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035.” His plan, not yet fully detailed, includes a variety of investment inducements and tax breaks.That would be more ambitious than the once-trendsetting 2045 goal of carbon-free energy production set by California. Already, solar power accounts for 18 percent of electricity generation at the utility Southern California Edison, said Erica Bowman, the company’s director of resource and environmental planning and strategy.Garvin Jabusch, chief investment officer for Green Alpha Advisors, an alternative energy investor, notes that the cost of generating electricity from solar energy is 90 percent lower than 10 years ago. Mr. Jabusch expects alternative energy prices to decline further with expanded demand. Mr. Jabusch favors companies that are “growing production capacity,” like First Solar, which has opened a new plant in Lake Township, Ohio, to expand production of its solar panels.For all its promise, investment in solar and wind power is limited by the laws of nature: Solar units can produce electricity only when the sun is shining, and wind turbines need wind.For the most part, Southern California Edison backs up its solar power with electricity generated by natural gas. But the utility recently contracted for nearly 600 megawatts of lithium ion battery storage so it can store excess electricity produced under ideal weather conditions.“Battery prices are down 90 percent over the last five to eight years,” Ms. Bowman said. “As we transition to a cleaner grid, solar generation coupled with battery storage is the cost-effective solution for California,” she added.Hydrogen fuel cells, which produce electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen, have emerged as a possible near-term solution for use in trucking and shipping, says Mr. Bloom. But such applications will require a costly expansion of the hydrogen gas filling station network, said Steve Capanna, director of U.S. climate policy and analysis for the Environmental Defense Fund. Right now, he said, beyond “a handful in California,” there aren’t many such stations.Buying shares of renewable energy stocks now requires a degree of faith, because they are so expensive, partly because of the low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve, which have helped to drive the overall stock market higher. Fed support may be the biggest reason the market has withstood all the grim economic news of the coronavirus to continue its seemingly unending valuation advance.Paul Coster, a JPMorgan analyst, said that the high prices in the renewables sector are based on solid achievement. “It’s not like the dot-com era,” he said. “These are real actors with real technology.” He added, “We’re living in this wonderful moment in time when virtue and self-interest coincide.”Perhaps, Mr. Coster mused, there are still good reasons to own some of these stocks. He cited FuelCell Energy, which has negative cash flow and has consistently reported quarterly earnings losses. Mr. Coster said investors may want to project out several years.By 2025, he said, it’s “feasible” that FuelCell Energy would have $60 million in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, justifying a rich, growth stock valuation. Even so, the company’s shares more than doubled in the last month, and on Jan. 14, Mr. Coster warned that at current prices, the stock was already “richly valued.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      What Is 13-3? Why a Debate Over the Fed Is Holding Up Stimulus Talks

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWhat Is 13-3? Why a Debate Over the Fed Is Holding Up Stimulus TalksThe Fed’s emergency lending authorities are a key part of its job. Republicans want to curb them. Democrats are pushing back.Senate Republicans are trying to make sure that emergency programs backed by the Federal Reserve cannot be restarted after they expire on December 31.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesDec. 18, 2020Updated 7:49 p.m. ETAs markets melted down in March, the Federal Reserve unveiled novel programs meant to keep credit flowing to states, medium-sized businesses and big companies — and Congress handed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin $454 billion to back up the effort.Nine months later, Senate Republicans are trying to make sure that those same programs cannot be restarted after Mr. Mnuchin lets them end on Dec. 31. Beyond preventing their reincarnation under the Biden administration, Republicans are seeking to insert language into a pandemic stimulus package that would limit the Fed’s powers going forward, potentially keeping it from lending to businesses and municipalities in future crises.The last-minute move has drawn Democratic ire, and it has imperiled the fate of relief legislation that economists say is sorely needed as households and businesses stare down a dark pandemic winter. Here is a rundown of how the Fed’s lending powers work and how Republicans are seeking to change them.The Fed can keep credit flowing when conditions are really bad.The Fed’s main and best-known job is setting interest rates to guide the economy. But the central bank was set up in 1913 in large part to stave off bank problems and financial panics — when people become nervous about the future and rush to withdraw their money from bank accounts and sell off stocks, bonds and other investments. Congress dramatically expanded the Fed’s powers to fight panics during the Great Depression, adding Section 13-3 to the Federal Reserve Act.The section allows the Fed to act as a lender of last resort during “unusual and exigent” circumstances — in short, when markets are not working normally because investors are exceptionally worried. The central bank used those powers extensively during the 2008 crisis, including to support politically unpopular bailouts of financial firms. Congress subsequently amended the Fed’s powers so that it would need Treasury’s blessing to roll out new emergency loan programs or to materially change existing ones.The programs provide confidence as much as credit.During the 2008 crisis, the Fed served primarily as a true lender of last resort — it mostly backed up the various financial markets by offering to step in if conditions got really bad. The 2020 emergency loan programs have been way more expansive. Last time, the Fed concentrated on parts of Wall Street most Americans know little about like the commercial paper market and primary dealers. This time, it reintroduced those measures, but it also unveiled new programs that have kept credit available in virtually every part of the economy. It has offered to buy municipal bonds, supported bank lending to small and medium-sized businesses, and bought up corporate debt.The sweeping package was a response to a real problem: Many markets were crashing in March. And the new programs generally worked. While the terms weren’t super generous and relatively few companies and state and local borrowers have taken advantage of these new programs, their existence gave investors confidence that the central bank would prevent a financial collapse.But things started getting messy in mid-November.Most lawmakers agreed that the Fed and Treasury had done a good job reopening credit markets and protecting the economy. But Senator Patrick J. Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican, started to ask questions this summer about when the programs would end. He said he was worried that the Fed might overstep its boundaries and replace private lenders.After the election, other Republicans joined Mr. Toomey’s push to end the programs. Mr. Mnuchin announced on Nov. 19 that he believed Congress had intended for the five programs backed by the $454 billion Congress authorized to stop lending and buying bonds on Dec. 31. He closed them — while leaving a handful of mostly older programs open — and asked the Fed to return the money he had lent to the central bank.Business & EconomyLatest UpdatesUpdated Dec. 18, 2020, 12:25 p.m. ETLee Raymond, a former Exxon chief, will step down from JPMorgan Chase’s board.U.S. adds chip maker S.M.I.C. and drone maker DJI to its entity list.Volkswagen says semiconductor shortages will cause production delays.The Fed issued a statement saying it was dissatisfied with his choice, but agreed to give the money back.Democrats criticized the move as designed to limit the incoming Biden administration’s options. They began to discuss whether they could reclaim the funds and restart the programs once Mr. Biden took office and his Treasury secretary was confirmed, since Mr. Mnuchin’s decision to close them and claw back the funds rested on dubious legal ground.The new Republican move would cut off that option. Legislative language circulating early Friday suggested that it would prevent “any program or facility that is similar to any program or facility established” using the 2020 appropriation. While that would still allow the Fed to provide liquidity to Wall Street during a crisis, it could seriously limit the central bank’s freedom to lend to businesses, states and localities well into the future.In a statement, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, called it an attempt to “to sabotage President Biden and our nation’s economy.”Mr. Toomey has defended his proposal as an effort to protect the Fed from politicization. For example, he said Democrats might try to make the Fed’s programs much more generous to states and local governments.The Treasury secretary would need to have the Fed’s approval to improve the terms to help favored borrowers. But the central bank might not readily agree, as it has generally approached its powers cautiously to avoid attracting political scrutiny and to maintain its status as a nonpartisan institution.Fed officials have avoided weighing in on the congressional showdown underway.“I won’t have anything to say on that beyond what we have already said — that Secretary Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, would like for the programs to end as of Dec. 31” and that the Fed will give back the money as asked, Richard H. Clarida, the vice chairman of the Fed, said Friday on CNBC.More generally, he added that “we do believe that the 13-3 facilities” have been “very valuable.”Emily Cochrane More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      2,596 Trades in One Term: Inside Senator Perdue’s Stock Portfolio

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesWho Gets the Vaccine First?Vaccine TrackerFAQAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story2,596 Trades in One Term: Inside Senator Perdue’s Stock PortfolioThe Georgia Republican’s stock trades have far outpaced those of his Senate colleagues and have included a range of companies within his Senate committees’ oversight, an analysis shows.Senator David Perdue’s stock trading accounts for nearly a third of all Senate trades reported in the past six years.Credit…Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call/Bloomberg, via Getty ImagesBy More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Markets Throw a Welcome Party of Sorts for Biden

      by

      A day after the Trump administration effectively acknowledged the election of Joseph R. Biden Jr., investors showed their relief by pushing the two major stock market indexes to all-time records on Tuesday.It was a welcome party of sorts for Mr. Biden, but what investors were really embracing was the end of uncertainty. President-elect Biden has vowed to push for more stimulus to bolster the economy. His selection for Treasury secretary, Janet L. Yellen, is well known from her days as Federal Reserve chair. And several new coronavirus vaccine candidates mean that the pandemic could be under control in the months ahead.President Trump, who on the campaign trail had warned that Mr. Biden’s election would lead to stock market armageddon, on Tuesday implied that the day’s highs were his own doing, making an unscheduled stop at a White House briefing to play up the latest gains in the Dow Jones industrial average.“The stock market’s just broken 30,000 — never been broken, that number,” said Mr. Trump, who has often used the markets as a barometer of his presidency. “That’s a sacred number, 30,000; nobody thought they’d ever see it.” He added: “I just want to congratulate all the people within the administration that worked so hard. And most importantly, I want to congratulate the people of our country, because there are no people like you.”Mr. Trump, who spoke for about 65 seconds, ignored questions from reporters about whether he would concede to Mr. Biden.On Wall Street, the S&P 500 stock index rose 1.6 percent to a new high of 3,635.41, while the Dow rose 1.5 percent, closing above 30,000 for the first time.“We have an enormous amount of certainty that we didn’t have just a few months ago,” said Kristina Hooper, chief global market strategist at Invesco, an investment management firm.The last few months have been a volatile stretch for investors. After hitting a peak on Sept. 2, the S&P 500 began to fall, and — except for a brief uptick the following month — remained roughly 9 percent below the peak until the end of October.One sign of investor anxiety was the volatility displayed in the VIX, an index widely known as Wall Street’s “fear gauge.” The VIX spiked by more than 50 percent in late October as the virus picked up again and the election approached. A meltdown of technology stocks added to the uncertainty. In the last week in October, stocks fell 5.6 percent, the biggest weekly drop since March. Still, stocks were up for the year at the end of last month.And in the weeks since the election stocks have climbed steadily, primarily because of encouraging vaccine news. Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca have all announced that their vaccine candidates showed favorable results in trials. The S&P 500 has risen roughly 8 percent since the election. Some investors believe that with Mr. Biden in the White House, and Republicans likely to retain control of the Senate, they could count on political gridlock to block tax increases that could roil the markets.“You have a Biden administration likely governed by a split Congress and a conservative Supreme Court so it eliminates some of the most extreme policies either on the right or left,” said Michael Arone, chief investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors. “So markets are celebrating that.”The good news about vaccines has bolstered stocks that had been hit hard by the outbreak. Stocks of airlines and oil companies have soared this month. United Airlines, American Airlines and Delta Air Lines have all climbed by more than 30 percent. The oil giant Chevron is up nearly 38 percent. The Russell 2000 — an index of smaller capitalization companies heavily influenced by the shorter-term outlook for the U.S. economy — is up more than 20 percent this month alone.But many analysts believe that the market could have done even better without the political uncertainty about the outcome of the election. The president’s baseless claims that there was fraud in the election and that he would ultimately win a second term helped keep a lid on gains by injecting uncertainty into the markets.The decision on Monday by Emily W. Murphy, the administrator of the General Services Administration, to allow the presidential transition process to move forward made investors feel confident that the election was finally over, Ms. Hooper said. “I think that was creating a significant overhang and raised questions about how long this would drag on,” she said.Markets also appeared to welcome the return of politics as usual under a future Biden administration, and were reassured by the news that Ms. Yellen will be Mr. Biden’s nominee to head the Treasury Department. She is a known quantity on Wall Street, well respected for her steady leadership at the head of the central bank, from 2014 to 2018.“There had been some fear that Mr. Biden would pick a Treasury secretary with a strong anti-Wall Street bias,” wrote analysts with High Frequency Economics in a client note on Tuesday. “Janet Yellen isn’t that.”The markets performed well under Mr. Trump for the most part. Since his election in 2016, the S&P 500 has returned more than 80 percent — including dividend payments. Most analysts credit the administration’s tax cuts — signed into law in 2017 — for a significant part of the gains.But the last four years have also been a volatile period for markets, with multiple sharp, sudden downturns often linked to policies pushed by Mr. Trump, such as his trade war with China, which helped push stocks to a 6 percent loss in 2018.This year, the more than 11-year-old bull market collapsed in March, as the S&P 500 dove nearly 34 percent in a matter of weeks as the virus raged around the globe, before eventually climbing to new highs.Mr. Trump’s style was often at odds with Wall Street’s preferences.He broke with the tradition of virtually all other recent presidents in using the power of the bully pulpit to browbeat individual companies — including Boeing, Amazon, Ford and General Motors — for decisions he disliked, often sending their shares reeling in real time.Even those on Wall Street who might have supported some of the president’s policies often said they could do without his constant Twitter missives weighing in on the markets. (Since his election in 2016 the president has tweeted or retweeted roughly 200 messages on the markets.)“It always bothered me that the president tweeted about the markets,” said Paul Schatz, who manages roughly $90 million in assets for clients largely in New York, Connecticut and Florida. “As an investment adviser in charge of taking care of people’s money, I would rather the president would not wade into those waters.”Michael Crowley contributed reporting. More