Billionaire Jeffrey Gundlach says the 'biggest risk' for markets in 2020 is a Bernie Sanders win

[NYMinute]

If you have a 401-K -- consider this

Bond investor Jeffrey Gundlach, the CEO of $149 billion DoubleLine Capital, believes the “biggest risk” for markets in 2020 is Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders.

Markets are being whipsawed by geopolitical fears, the U.S.-China trade war and whether the world’s largest economy can avoid a downturn. However, the bond guru believes the Vermont Senator — a standard-bearer for the political left and a top-tier 2020 contender — is something investors should consider a risk.

“I think it’s Bernie Sanders becoming more believed in as a real force, and we have to start taking him more seriously," Gundlach said during his annual “Just Markets” webcast late Tuesday.

Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren “never rose to that. I was always asked, 'When’s the market going to take Elizabeth Warren seriously?' I said, 'Never, because she’s never going to really have a chance.'”

https://us.yahoo.com/finance/news/jeffrey-gundlach-on-bernie-sanders-risk-150327797.html

Remember, every average Joe has a stake in the markets - it is not just millionaires (like Bernie) or billionaires. The latter can absorb the losses but not average people whose retirement is tied up in the markets.

[dchill]

1. Good. I say go for it.

[rurallib]

2. An endorsement like that could make me change to Bernie

But I believe Elizabeth can make the rich quiver a bit also.

[bluewater]

3. Bazinga!

Well said.

[JoeOtterbein]

4. BAM!!!!!!!!

Thanks for posting!

[Farmer-Rick]

8. Love your response rural

[emmaverybo]

10. The point of the post was that many of us are invested, not only the rich. The effects of a market

downturn are global—on pensions, home values, smaller investments. It is not something to wish for and not selective in the folks it costs.

[rurallib]

13. This is true but I put as much stock (no real pun intended) in what Mr. Gundlach

(or whatever) says as I do in Trump.
He has no power to predict the future. What is actually really scary is that guys like him and some CEOs can CAUSE a massive downturn because they own so much of the market. That is just wrong and really, really needs to be addressed.

I wish no harm to anyone, but to let this current overinflated market that seems to be in a world of its own to continue only delays the inevitable. Hopefully when the bubble bursts we have someone who can guide the economy for all.

And hopefully we will have some politicians who will finally put some checks back together so the wild boom & bust cycle will be tamed. Dems and FDR did so after the Great Depression.

[The Valley Below]

18. Yes, and yet...

[vsrazdem]

19. They don't need help from Bernie to tank the Economy, They do that quite well on their own.

[Doremus]

43. If you're invested you should be prepared to lose it because it's happened before (2008)

The investor class is very much NOT us, emmaverybo. Our 401k's are chump change to them.

If you're going to be depending on your 401k anytime soon, it should invested in a safe fund, away from their greedy fingers.

[Champion Jack]

15. Yup!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. Seriously!! Let's start taking advice from billionaires... sheeesh!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[lame54]

35. Beat me to it

[Mike Nelson]

5. I agree...

...with billionaire Jeffrey Gundlach. He won't be doing as well after 2020 - no matter which Democrat is elected

[spooky3]

27. I disagree. The Dems manage the economy better

Than the Repubs. Jeffy did great during the Obama and Clinton years when stock prices soared. The only thing he can complain about is paying higher taxes. Seems like a good tradeoff to me.

[Farmer-Rick]

6. 84% of all stocks owned by Americans are owned by the richest 10%

That only leaves 16% of all stocks for pension plans, 401(k)’s and individual retirement accounts, as well as trust funds, mutual funds and college savings programs like 529 plans.

Yeah right we all have a stake in the filthy rich gambling with stocks.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks-economy.amp.html

[still_one]

7. The real problem about Sanders is things like this

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=414897

The dishonesty is disgusting

[beastie boy]

9. He has skin in the game so I can only take his word as fear mongering There are other risks involved

Like Trump easily winning a second term against Bernie. Now that's scary! To hell with my 401K should that happen!

[still_one]

11. That is exactly what would happen

[NYMinute]

12. Some here are rejoicing that a billionaire is hurting

Unfortunately, the billionaire is probably heavily diversified and hedged.

The ones will be hurt are the middle class with 401-Ks -- a Sanders win will doom them and their retirement.

[LongtimeAZDem]

17. Cutting off their noses to spite their faces

[Autumn]

14. Wow, that's fantastic. Now I know I'm supporting the right candidate

[bucolic_frolic]

16. In reality there is no risk in the markets and there won't be

until the Fed stops printing money. We are into QE4 now, thought the Fed denies it. They've injected $420B since the cash crunch in September. Notice how the market drifts higher and higher each day, just like 2010-2015? There is not anything they won't print money for. The only thing that will stop them is inflation, and even there the reasons to stop don't exist anymore. The only Fed remedy is to print and print and print and call it something else.

Bernie or Eliz will not stop the markets because they will not stop the Fed.

[Ron Green]

20. "The Markets" As Exemplified in Wall Street Are Not Actual Wealth.

They’re a claim on actual wealth, that being houses, tools, schools, infrastructure, healthy relationships and other good things produced and maintained in communities.

There’s a reason every corporate media outlet blathers about “The Markets” every day, and it has nothing to do with community wealth. It’s to keep enough people fooled into thinking the GDP and the S&P are important to our happiness and are worth saving. They’re not.

[NYMinute]

21. Tell that to someone who has money in 401-K

The "markets" is what pays for many people to survive in their old age from money accumulated over the years.

Stock can be encashed every day, all day. the "other good things" you speak of only sound good are are only for Bernie-world.

[Ron Green]

22. The Collapse is coming.

It’ll be good to have as much real wealth (see above) as possible in comparison to the phony promises of Wall Street.

[NYMinute]

25. ...

[Ron Green]

39. Well, that's a pithy reply.

My view is that we need a moral economy, a resilient one that works for the largest number of people possible, rather than the fragile one we now have which extracts value from local players and places... and sends it to Wall Street.

Building community wealth should be the goal of any economic activity. I believe, from looking at your responses here, that you don’t agree.

[NYMinute]

42. Sorry. Hyperboles a la Sanders make me laugh.

Local economy - unless it is an extreme specialty or niche business, is rejected by purchasers. Purchasers look for lower cost and convenience and there is nothing "immoral" about that.

I buy stuff from Amazon because I get almost anything I want, get it fast, has hassle free returns and the prices are better than local stores. I am not ashamed of it.

Heck, even Bernie's campaign buys hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stuff from Amazon - the hypocrisy could cut through granite.

How will Bernie force a community based economy? Give tax credits to mom and pop stores with another 17 trillion dollar program? Malls destroyed most mom and pop stores a long time ago.

Consumers vote with their checkbooks and are not interested in Bernie's platitudes and slogans when they do.

[brooklynite]

24. It's troubling to know that Union Pension Funds aren't really doing well...

[NYMinute]

28. Union pensions are heavily into the markets. nt

[Cha]

23. We know.

[texasfiddler]

26. Oh no my 409k might go down

[Bradshaw3]

30. This has been a repub talking point for every election I can remember

Yes, we have to make sure Wall Street gets theirs and the average Joe just has to understand that. Spreading fear of an economic downturn in order to preseve the status quo is a repub tactic going back decades.

[NYMinute]

31. The average Joe is heavily into the markets

whether through 401K or via union pension plans.

[Bradshaw3]

32. Totally wrong

About half of the American people are invested in the markets. So, taking into account those who are higher income and not "average Joes", the majority are NOT invested in the markets, much less "heavily invested" as you inaccurately claim. Using repub talking points and falsehoods won't convince people.

[NYMinute]

33. That is just plutophobia nt

[Bradshaw3]

36. No it's a fact and your response says it all

From Politifact:
"One of the paper’s findings was that "despite the fact that almost half of all households owned stock shares either directly or indirectly through mutual funds, trusts, or various pension accounts, the richest 10 percent of households controlled 84 percent of the total value of these stocks in 2016."

This line by Wolff presents a key contrast that Khanna’s post glosses over: While about half of households own stocks in one way or another, the richest Americans hold the lion’s share of the value.


https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/sep/18/ro-khanna/what-percentage-americans-own-stocks/

So you got anything besides more falsehoods, repub talking points and ad hominem attacks? Or have you embarrassed yourself enough?

[NYMinute]

38. What difference does how much stock the rich hold make?

The rich can actually afford a drop in the markets. The poorer people can't - they are affected severely.

Also, when the stocks tank, businesses cannot borrow or raise capital and they turn to layoffs to maintain profitability.

So the markets impact everyone. Even if one is a panhandler and owns no stock, people's ability to donate suffers when the markets drop and the panhandler's pan will have fewer dollars.

I repeat, you are ONLY expressing plutophobia.

[Bradshaw3]

40. Can't admit you are wrong I see

You said that the average Joe is invested heavily in the stock market. I posted a fact-based study you are 100 percent wrong - and you try to change the subject. Again, nothing but repub talking points and repeating a stupid ad hominem attack. Be big about it and admit your claim was false and stop with the personal attacks. They only show you can't admit the truth and are desperate.

[NYMinute]

41. The point is that everyone would get hurt if Bernie Sanders is POTUS

As a Warren supporter, it is interesting that you'd defend Bernie so much.

[TidalWave46]

34. The markets like stability and currently have great favor with respect to taxes and regulations.

I imagine a Sanders Presidency would look very similar to his career as a politician and very few major changes would be implemented with him being the catalyst. I disagree that he would be bad for the markets because of this.

[booley]

37. So the guys who destroyed the economy are worried Sanders will destroy the economy

Maybe we should take a minute to consider why this guy may not be the most credible to speak on this. People like this carelessly and happily DESTROYED the savings and obs of average people. Keeping that from happening again is precisely why Sanders is so much better on this than any of the Billionaire Friendly Candidates running.

This idea that Sanders will hurt average Americans is almost Rovian. (you know, attack a candidate where he is strong)

Oh and I remind you..

Yes, Sanders has two million. Much of which came from Book Sales. Not the markets.

Its should be obvious by now there is a large disconnect between what is good for Billionaires and what is good for everybody else.