Financial advisers' No. 1 worry: A Democrat in the White House

[swag]

Profound idiocy:

Nothing worries financial advisers more than the prospect of a Democrat's being elected president in November, according to a quarterly poll by Brinker Capital Inc.

The fourth-quarter edition of the Brinker Barometer, which polled 236 advisers in December, found that 22% indicated that a "Democrat in the White House" worried them more than all other economic or geopolitical concerns.

Rounding out the list of concerns was "global unrest" (15%), "U.S. economic growth" (15%), "a terrorist attack" (13%) and "a recession" (13%).

When asked what their greatest tax concern would be under a Democratic administration, 81% of advisers cited a potential increase in the capital gains tax, an income tax increase and heavier taxes on dividends.

John E. Coyne: Higher taxes can make equities less attractive. " the Bush administration's approach to taxation will have a large impact on advisers and their clients," said John E. Coyne, president of Berwyn, Pa.-based Brinker Capital, which manages $9.4 billion in assets. "When taxes begin to erode returns, equities remain less attractive."
The results jibe with a poll that Brinker conducted last summer in which 60% of advisers said that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., would be the worst choice in terms of the economy and investing.

On the flip side of that poll, 36% of advisers said they thought that Republican presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani would have the most positive effect on the U.S. economy and investing

[swag]

1. It's amusing to me that they always get this wrong.

There are rafts of data (including from Republican boosters like Jeremy Siegel) thgat demonstrate that both the stock market and the economy do better under Democratic administrations.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. But do the top, top, top money people do better?

I don't think Wall Street really gives a fuck what the economy is doing in general, just so long as the rich get richer.

That's what an ownership society is all about, right?

[aquart]

3. Exactly. So now we know our money men flunked economic history.

AND statistics.

Doesn't that fill you full of confidence?

[PATRICK]

4. I think everyone

is likely to take it slow on somethings, perhaps the capital gains tax, just to prevent a shock. The estate tax would be immediately targeted and a test for putting truth ahead of the ludicrous GOP propaganda.

Yes, this is BS. The Dems won't gleefully gut the economy with all the mess and traps to wade through. They are just worried about ANY regulation or responsibility that would cut into ANY profits as a precedent for reversing runaway greed. They have to rejoin the real world sometime and without their subtle threats.

On so many issues I know I can speak for Dems when critics have them down as promoting abortions, abolishing gun ownership and other things to distract from rational policies they clearly have that are mainstream common sense. Noting is as tricky as talking to nervous nellies in the economic sector whose greed has them seeing tax and spend regulating Dems breaking into their money vaults in January 2009.
Reality based economics is so daunting that anything truly progressive- much less "socialistic" is far away. Just starting to get out of their portfolios in the sky for a soft landing has these people alarmed even though the alternative is a massive depression of global proportions. Likely, for the common good, they will have to be placated unjustly with further unjust rewards and they will never appreciate that either. Nor will they appreciate the sacrifice of the common man who bails them out and spares them real world consequences and real justice.