Friday, November 18, 2016

OF SEXISM, COATTAILS, AND SAFE STOCKS

11/18/16



While I haven’t been writing much of late, I did take time to make the BIG prediction of a few weeks ago and to write a few letters to the Wall Street Journal.  The big prediction is a few posts down (TRUMP WILL WIN, AND WIN BIG, ON TUESDAY, 11/4/16) and I have reproduced below my latest three letters to the Journal.   Two (the first and the last) were published; indeed, the first was published today (Friday, 11/18/16).   The second letter, a piece relating the election of 1960 to the “reverse coattails” the “experts” were telling us in September that Donald Trump would be needing in November, never made it to the Journal’s pages.   I thought you might enjoy all three.


ON SEXISM AND THE RECENT DEFEAT OF SECRETARY CLINTON

11/12/16

Yet another of the “experts,” Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg, weighs in on Hillary Clinton’s inability to run up the predicted overwhelming margins among women voters: (page A5, Weekend Journal, 11/12-11/13/16)

“There are women, especially blue collar women, who are skeptical about women’s political leadership.  We still live in a sexist country.”

Once again, the experts have dropped the ball.   Women, even the “blue collar women,” who, for the experts, are little more than sociological curiosities, are not “skeptical about women’s political leadership.” They are instead skeptical about Hillary Clinton’s political leadership.

Do the experts regard it as remotely possible for someone, regardless of gender, to vote against a woman without being “sexist”?   Who indeed is being sexist here?

Mark M. Quinn



ON REVERSE COATTAILS, JOHN KENNEDY, AND DONALD TRUMP:

9/30/16

Reid Epstein speaks of Ohio in 2016 being a “rare case study in reverse coattails,” (“A Surprise Ohio Trump Card,” page A1, 9/30/16).   Reverse coattails may be rare in other parts of the country, but in my hometown of Chicago they are a component of the normal course of politics.  

The most famous and consequential case of reverse coattails in Chicago took place in 1960.  Mayor Richard J. Daley feared the reelection of then States Attorney Ben Adamowski, a political nemesis and 1955 mayoral primary opponent.  So the Mayor pulled out all the stops to inflate Democratic turnout in an effort to defeat Mr. Adamowski.   At the top of the Democratic ticket that year was a young man named John F. Kennedy.  Mr. Kennedy rode the coattails of Dan Ward, Mr. Adamowski’s opponent, to a landslide victory in Cook County, which resulted in his carrying Illinois and winning the presidency.   The rest is history.

Contrary to popular opinion, it was not Mayor Daley’s consanguineous affection for a young Irishman that motivated him to carry Cook County for the Senator from Massachusetts; it was the Mayor’s fear of a determined political opponent with prosecutorial powers.


Mark M. Quinn



 ON SAFE COMPANIES, SAFE STOCKS, AND THE DIFFERENCES

9/13/16

James McIntosh (“ ‘Safest’ Shares Prove They Are Anything But,” Streetwise, 9/13/16) makes a great point when he argues that Friday’s increase in long rates, prompted by more Fed talk of a rate increase, rocked investors in bond equivalents out of their state of complacency, causing them to abandon their high yielding stocks as quickly, and perhaps as thoughtlessly, as they jumped on the dividend bandwagon.

There is something more fundamental at work here, however.   The “safety” of a stock is as much a function of its price as it is of the underlying fundamentals of the issuer’s business.   The stock of even the safest company can be fraught with risk if that stock is too expensive.   That is precisely what has happened to the big dividend payers that have seen something of a comeuppance of late.   The last seats on the bandwagon are far more expensive, and dangerous, than the first seats.

Mark M. Quinn






No comments:

Post a Comment