|
Editor’s note: Whether President Barack Obama gets four more years as No. 44 or candidate Mitt Romney gets a chance to prove himself as No. 45, the real winner in this election can be YOU! That’s because … depending who wins the polls … a select group of stocks and sectors could go absolutely parabolic and hand early investors rapid-fire gains. Two senior analysts here at Weiss Research — Tony Sagami and Sean Brodrick — are combing through the respective candidates’ promises and policies, as well as the sectors that have historically responded best in the past under each party. They have found what they’re calling a wealth of “Romney Windfall Stocks” and “Obama Profit Bonanzas.” And in a special series of briefings from now until the election, they’re sharing their take on what’s at stake for investors … and, more importantly, the profit opportunities behind the promises. On Tuesday, Tony shared his forecast for the markets if we see a Romney victory. And today, Sean shares his predictions for the markets after a potential Obama re-election. Be sure to tune in on Tuesdays AND Thursdays so that you’ll be prepared to profit either way! |
Tonight Joe Biden and Paul Ryan will duke it out at the only vice-presidential debate before the election. The stakes are tremendously high for both parties, as they only have 26 more days to make their case for your vote.
For many investors, the stakes are still-higher. But no matter who wins, stocks will continue to do well … the main difference is which sectors should fare better under which candidate.
My colleague Tony Sagami shared his predictions earlier this week about how a Mitt Romney victory could benefit stocks and the economy. But Barack Obama has a real shot at keeping his job. And in that case, I see three distinct opportunities for investors during a potential second term, which I’d like to outline for you today.
For your trading profits,
Sean
P.S. On Nov. 7, you can know EXACTLY where to invest your wealth based on who occupies the White House for the next four years. That’s the day we’ll be delivering our brand-new “Election Day Survival and Prosperity Guide” — tailored specifically to the election’s outcome.
This post-election profit guide is filled with a presidential-focused batch of potential money-doublers designed for either a Romney or an Obama win. You don’t need to wait till the elections are over — you’ll be covered either way when you reserve your copy today!
Video Transcript
Hi, this is Sean Brodrick for Uncommon Wisdom Daily.
The vice presidential candidates are gearing up for their one and only debate tonight, following the first of three presidential debates last week. But there’s another debate going on in the markets — over whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney would be better for stocks and the economy.
Earlier this week, my colleague Tony Sagami shared his predictions for a potential Romney victory. But although the polls have been tightening, incumbents tend to be hard to beat. So I believe the more likely outcome is an Obama re-election.
The good thing for investors is that you can make money either way. But if the Obamas do remain in the White House, it should be positive for stocks and negative for bonds. Here are three reasons why:
First of all, President Obama has already been good for the markets. The Dow Industrials are up 68% since he took office. And while he can’t take all the credit for that gain, the stimulus and recovery programs that he put in place have certainly helped stocks rise. If he’s re-elected, he’ll likely enact more economic stimulus measures, pushing asset prices even higher.
A second Obama term would also be positive for energy stocks in particular. America has experienced an energy boom over the past four years, partly as a result of the president’s policies. He has supported natural gas as a clean-burning domestic fuel that can give us more energy security and cut into our oil imports. And oil and gas production on federal lands has gone up during the Obama administration.
Looking ahead, President Obama’s goal is to generate 80% of our electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. That’s an ambitious upgrade from the previous goal — 25% by 2025 — laid out in the 2008 Democratic Party platform. So a big push to reach the new target would be bullish for all sorts of alternative-energy stocks.
The final likely result of an Obama re-election would be a continued effort to cut the overhang of bad loans left over from the financial crisis. The Federal Reserve is also doing its part, by purchasing mortgage-backed securities. The resulting low mortgage rates, combined with a reduction of corporate debt, should heat up the housing market and provide more easy money for businesses of all types.
There are still two presidential debates to come, and the numbers are close enough that this election could go either way. But as it stands right now, President Obama is likely to win re-election. Polling group Five Thirty Eight estimates that he’s on track to garner 302 electoral votes, well above the 270 needed.
However, it’s always a good idea for investors to be prepared for any outcome. That’s why Tony and I have joined forces — to examine both potential results, and show you how to profit from them.
As we get closer to the election, I’ll tell you more about the investment opportunities that a second Obama term presents. So stay tuned.
I’m Sean Brodrick for Uncommon Wisdom Daily. Thanks for watching.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
“America has experienced an energy boom over the past four years, partly as a result of the president’s policies. He has supported natural gas as a clean-burning domestic fuel that can give us more energy security and cut into our oil imports. And oil and gas production on federal lands has gone up during the Obama administration.”
Absolutely nothing true in the above statement! Apps for drilling on PRIVATE land has gone up and plummeted on FEDERAL land. He is about to start a war on fracking, real helpful to the oil and gas
industry. Typical!!
Mr. Brodrick, Where did you find the information that oil and gas production has increased on federal lands? Other evidence points to just to a decrease of oil and gas on Federal Lands and an increase on private ownership.
This sounds like more of a political ad for Obama than any market analysis. How is our electricity bills, “necessarily” exploding higher going to help anything? Just for one example. Please, at least while you are trying to sell something, keep the politics and propaganda out of it. Thank you.
….and a thousand reasons why it would be devastating.
Do you really believe that ??????? !!!!!!!
This guy must be from another planet. Please unsubscribe me from this guy.
Nat-gas production on federal lands is down. Oil production is up. And if it weren’t for the Deepwater Horizon spill, it would be up more. With the drilling prohibition in the Gulf now lifted, production should go much higher. From this article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-oil-gas/index.html
“On federal and Indian lands, as well as federally approved offshore drilling sites, oil production went up from 1.6 million barrels per day to 2 million barrels per day between fiscal years 2008 and 2010. But it dropped to 1.8 million barrels per day for the last fiscal year available, a decrease that the U.S. Energy Information Administration attributes to the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Despite the one-year drop in production, oil production on federal and Indian lands from 2009 through 2011 totaled 2.027 million barrels. That’s an average of 675,000 barrels per year during Obama’s term, compared to an average annual production of 609,000 barrels annually during Bush’s last term.”
And a note to SC — we make investment picks. oil stocks have done well in Obama’s first 4 years; if he’s re-elected, there’s no reason to think they won’t continue to do well. http://bit.ly/QU9lWB Higher energy bills are a real concern, but as long as nat-gas prices remain moderate, you may actually start to see lower bills. Some consumers already have.
Oil production on Federal l lands is up. And if it weren’t for the Deepwater Horizon spill, it would be up more. With the drilling prohibition in the Gulf now lifted, production should go much higher. From this article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-oil-gas/index.html
“On federal and Indian lands, as well as federally approved offshore drilling sites, oil production went up from 1.6 million barrels per day to 2 million barrels per day between fiscal years 2008 and 2010. But it dropped to 1.8 million barrels per day for the last fiscal year available, a decrease that the U.S. Energy Information Administration attributes to the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
“Despite the one-year drop in production, oil production on federal and Indian lands from 2009 through 2011 totaled 2.027 million barrels. That’s an average of 675,000 barrels per year during Obama’s term, compared to an average annual production of 609,000 barrels annually during Bush’s last term.”
As for nat-gas production, while production in federal areas is generally down, some is up. Here’s a quote from the story about nat-gas production on federal lands: ‘gas production onshore, on federal lands, is actually higher now than it was at the end of the Bush administration.”
The reason that nat-gas production overall is down is due to the Deepwater Horizon spill, but that crisis is over, and it should be going higher again.
And a note to SC — we make investment picks. oil stocks have done well in Obama’s first 4 years; if he’s re-elected, there’s no reason to think they won’t continue to do well. http://bit.ly/QU9lWB
Higher energy bills are a real concern, but as long as nat-gas prices remain moderate, you may actually start to see lower bills. Some consumers already have. Higher gasoline prices are another story.
Brodrick sounds like a CNBC hack where has he been? Obama will slow the oil production expansion drastically as his assault on carbons will continue but I would expect production to increase in spite of Obama. Romney has made it very clear he will help in expanding drilling and with the new technology in fracking and horizontal drilling along with the tremendous discoveries in oil shale it is a real game changer for the US economy. But neither of the Candidates have an answer to the underlying systemic problems our country faces. A strong economy would help a lot but there still needs to be a significant reduction in government and increase in revenue to pay down the debt which seems to be unlikely politically as to how to go about it, just hope things do change on that front cause we don’t have much time left if it hasn’t already past.
Why not dispute the facts as Broderick has layed them out instead of going with the partisan CNBC attack. Address the facts for the real answers. Broderick provided charts, and those charts paint the real picture.
Wasn’t the objective of this video just to explain about a few investment strategies no matter who wins the election? I guess a few of the facts like the stock markets rising over the past four years must drive some people crazy.
Thanks for your facts on this Sean. Some folks wouldn’t understand the effect of the Deep Water Horizon disaster unless you spoke their language. The fact is we (US) don’t control our short term energy future. If you invest short term you will be effected by import – world wide demand factors. Long term, a combination of policies currenly in place will work in time.
CNN Report “So you will feel at home with a liberal leaning report),” the same comparable periods for drilling permits on federal lands. There were 20,479 for the last three years under Bush, then 12,821 for the most recent three including much of Obama’s first term. This is a 37.4% decrease” And Tony, the holding your thumb in your index finger and shaking it Clinton started and the current president puppets plus your overt support of the current presidents “likelihood” to win is lame. Also attributing moves in the stock market to any entity other than the Federal Reserve is certainly a mistake I believe. I did not copy the oil numbers but they show a decrease of 200 thousand bpd last year.
hey, v nix — drilling permits aren’t the same as production — I think I make that clear in the comments. Also, my name is Sean, not Tony. And if you think Mitt Romney will win, then Tony has some picks for you that you might be interested in. I’d say the odds are about 50-50 now, but I can make money either way.