Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the shifts in investor sentiment around the last seven US presidential elections (1988 through 2012).

Investor sentiment is measured by changes in closed-end funds discounts, and the results are corroborated with three robustness tests, including an alternate measure of investor sentiment obtained from the survey conducted by the American Association of Individual Investors.

Closed­end funds discounts are significantly diminished from two weeks before a US presidential election to a week before the election, and persist until the week after the election, suggesting an increase in investors’ optimism during that period, particularly when a Democrat is elected president. More than the particular party prevailing, however, investors appear to be more interested in avoiding the entrenchment of power since the results suggest that they become optimistic when a change in the ruling party takes place, but become pessimistic when there is power continuity in the White House. The increase in investor optimism that is observed around the time of US presidential elections is not replicated during non-election years, which seems to corroborate that the elections are indeed driving the results.

This paper is the first to formally examine the relation between investor sentiment and US presidential elections using closed-end funds discounts as the measure for sentiment.

In seeking to extend rational choice theory from “market” to “political” behaviour, economists have encountered a paradox: namely, that the act of voting itself appears to be inconsistent with the assumption of rationality. This is true not only when self‐interest is assumed, but also when altruistic behaviour (at least in its non‐Kantian form) is allowed for. This article surveys the theoretical and empirical literature on the determinants of the decision to participate in voting, and concludes that this decision is responsive to changes in the expected benefits and costs of voting; even though the expected costs of voting must normally outweigh the expected benefits. Interpretations of this behaviour include the possibility that voters act rationally, but are misinformed about the likely effectiveness of their votes; alternatively, the electorate may include more Kantians than economists have generally been willing to admit.

This study examines the influence of the presidential elections on the behaviour of US investors according to the trading activity of two of the most popular investment vehicles: exchange-traded funds and close-ended funds.

Based on the fact that investors in these two investment vehicles differ by, at least, two demographic factors that influence investment decisions, age and labour status, inferences are made about the degree of interest and the amount of trading activity that presidential elections provoke.

The evidence demonstrates that, during the last four US presidential elections, exchange-traded funds' investors trade significantly more than close-ended funds' investors during several event windows centred on the day of an election in which a republican candidate is elected. Close-ended funds' investors are more active during the election of a democratic candidate, although the statistical evidence in that regard is weak. Thus, it appears reasonable to conclude that younger investors who are gainfully employed are induced to trade by a presidential election in which a republican candidate prevails. Apparently, a democratic victory does not provoke the same behaviour.

Although the relation between politics and economics is not an unexplored topic, it is not clear whether the presidential elections themselves constitute an event that triggers the trading behaviour of investors.

The purpose of this paper is to use data from the 2008 and 2012 US Senate elections to examine the relationship between candidate size (obese, overweight, normal weight) and candidate selection and election outcomes.

Using pictures captured from candidate web sites, participants rated the size of candidates in the primary and general US Senate elections. χ2 analyses, t-tests and hierarchical multiple regressions were used to test for evidence of bias against overweight and obese candidates and whether gender and election information moderate that relationship.

Obese candidates were largely absent from the pool of candidates in both the primary and general elections. Overweight women, but not overweight men, were also underrepresented. Supporting our hypothesis that there is bias against overweight candidates, heavier candidates tended to receive lower vote share than their thinner counterparts, and the larger the size difference between the candidates, the larger the vote share discrepancy. The paper did not find a moderating effect for gender or high-information high vs low-information elections on the relationship between candidate size and vote share.

Further research is needed to understand the process by which obese candidates are culled from the candidate pool and the cognitions underlying the biases against overweight candidates.

Because of the bias against obese political candidates, as much as one-third of the adult US population are likely to be excluded or being elected to a major political office.

This study is the first to use election data to examine whether bias based on size extends to the electoral process.

Revelation of controversial fundraising practices by the Clinton‐Gore reelection campaign in 1996 and continuing controversy over proposed campaign finance reform legislation has brought this subject into public focus and discussion. This article provides an overview of key recent developments in campaign finance accompanied by coverage of literature and Web sites produced by scholars, government agencies, and participants in the ongoing debate over campaign finance and its role in the American political process.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a plausible explanation for the “sell in May” anomaly observed in US stock markets. A heretofore unexplained strategy of selling stock in May and not returning to the market until November has been shown to outperform a simple strategy of buying and holding stock all year long.

The authors compare the seasonal performance of three US size-based portfolios for the May–October and November–April periods considering whether or not they were in years with US congressional elections, which occur every two years.

While the sell-in-May effect appears to persist in the long run, the authors find that the anomaly is not present in non-election years. There is no significant difference between the May–October and November–April stock returns in non-election years. The observed sell-in-May effect is driven by poor stock returns in the May–October periods leading up to US presidential or congressional elections and subsequent strong performance in the November–April periods immediately following elections.

The paper offers an election-year effect as an explanation of the sell-in-May anomaly that has been observed in the US stock market. Other possible explanations of the effect, such as seasonal affective disorder, the weather, and daylight savings time, have not gained widespread acceptance.

This paper aims to explore the election cycle and financial markets puzzle in a unique emerging market like Malaysia.

By employing an event-study methodology and wavelet analyses, the author tests for uncertain information hypothesis by examining the reactions of the Kuala Lumpur Composite Index (KLCI) and ringgit surrounding Malaysian general elections, spanning from GE5 (1978) to GE14 (2018). This paper also explores the relationship between KLCI and ringgit.

While the author does not find support for the uncertain information hypothesis, the author uncovers that KLCI tends to overreact following elections, regardless of the winning coalition. The author also records no relationship between KLCI and ringgit in the short run, but the author observes that ringgit leads KLCI in the long run.

The study’s findings bear implications for investors' disposition in the Malaysian equity market. Investors should square off their positions before the general elections to avoid equity market overreactions and potential losses.

Before Malaysia GE14 (2018) general election, Barisan Nasional carried the reputation as one of the longest-serving ruling coalitions in the world since Malaya independence in 1957. However, the ruling coalition was voted out in GE14 (2018), and the Malaysian equity has since dropped.

The authors aim to analyze whether the results of the 1980 to 2008 US presidential elections influence the stock market performance of eight industries and they seek to examine factors that are expected to affect firms' stock returns around these elections. Their empirical analysis reflects firms' exposure to government policies in two ways.

First, to determine whether investors presume any Democratic or Republican favoritism towards or biases against certain industries, the authors perform an event study for each of the eight industries around the eight elections. Second, the authors include the firms' marginal tax rate as proxy for the firms' exposure to uncertainty about fiscal policy in a regression analysis.

The authors do not find a consistent pattern in industry returns when comparing the effect of Democratic vs Republican victories. However, the extent of the reaction differs among industries. The victory of a Democratic candidate rather negatively influences overall stock returns, while the results are rather mixed for Republican victories. A change in presidency from either a Democratic to a Republican candidate or vice versa causes stronger stock market effects than re‐election or the election of a president from the same party. The authors also find that the firms' marginal tax rate is positively correlated with abnormal stock price returns around the election day.

The results are relevant for academics, investors and policy makers alike because they provide insight on the question whether stock market participants respond to expected changes in policy making as a result of presidential elections.

This chapter asks: How has Donald Trump communicated about COVID-19 on Twitter? How have conspiracy theories influenced his Twitter communication about COVID-19? Utilising critical discourse analysis, it analysed tweets in which Trump communicated about COVID-19 and showed that he used social media to spread conspiracy theories and fake news about COVID-19.

The findings show that Donald Trump uses social media such as Twitter for spreading far-right ideology, conspiracy theories and fake news. He makes use of a variety of linguistic ideological devices. In the context of COVID-19, Trump has spread a variety of conspiracy theories to his millions of followers, which has contributed to the intensification of risks and harms at the time of the worst global health crisis in 100 years.

The 1896 presidential election between William Jennings Bryan and William McKinley has new salience in the wake of the 2016 presidential contest. We provide the first systematic analysis of presidential voting in 1896, combining county-level returns with economic, financial, and demographic data. We show that Bryan did well where interest rates were high, railroad penetration was low, and crop prices had declined. We show that further declines in crop prices or increases in interest rates would have been enough to tip the Electoral College in Bryan’s favor. But to change the outcome, the additional changes would have had to be large.