Why Politics May Not Be a Reliable Reason to Buy or Sell Stocks

• Corey says stocks moved higher across many sectors after an election the prior evening, and he links part of that to clarity and part to possible policy implications.

• He says that, in his view, buying or selling stocks because of political motivation has not historically been a strong basis for long-term investing.

• He explains that the concern about data centers is about the physical infrastructure, and that he does not see it as a statement about technology as a whole.

• He observes that consumer-facing and housing-related companies moved higher on the day, and that energy-related companies moved lower.

• He describes a one-day move as a knee-jerk reaction that may reverse, and says nothing about a long-term plan changes because of one news event.

• These are Corey's opinions for education. They are not forecasts, and nothing here is a recommendation about any security.

Corey opens by saying the stock market was moving broadly higher on the day after an election. In his view, some of the move related to clarity, which he says markets had been waiting for, and some related to possible policy implications. He says he will walk through the market sector by sector and then step back to look at the bigger picture. He covers this at (0:19) and (0:40).

He adds that he will look at specific companies affected by these themes, and at why politics may not be a good reason to buy or sell a broad market index or even a single stock. He then gives the standard reminder that the video is a financial education presentation, that viewers should do their own due diligence before acting on anything they hear, and that the opinions are his alone. More disclosure information is available on the firm's website. He covers this at (1:01) and (1:20).

He also points to moves in bond yields and oil prices on the day of the recording and says he will explain why they might be happening. He frames part of the stock market move as money being put to work now that an uncertain event has passed. He covers this at (1:40), (2:00), and (2:21). This recap does not repeat the percentages or levels he mentions.

Corey asks whether investors should buy or sell stocks because of political motivation. In his view, history suggests that this approach has not tended to support strong long-term results. He says he does not invest based on political views or the current political environment, though it can be useful to be mindful of how certain companies may be affected, some more than others. He covers this at (0:40) and (1:01).

He shows a chart of historical average annual stock market results under different combinations of political control in Washington. He asks whether an investor would be comfortable with those historical outcomes, and says the chances are that many would be. He also notes that the source of the chart points out how the results change when one unusually difficult year is excluded. He covers this at (2:30), (2:50), and (3:10).

He says that buying a broad index at any single moment can lead to unpredictable forward-looking results, but that investors who stay invested for long periods have historically had favorable outcomes. He stresses that this is a statement about history, and that future results may be different. He covers this at (3:29). Past performance does not guarantee future results, and a long holding period does not remove the possibility of loss.

Corey discusses community opposition to data center facilities. In his view, a facility that serves customers in other places while sitting in a community's backyard may be unpopular, and he says this has shown up in local political settings. He asks whether data centers could face more political pressure, and says that is possible. He covers this at (6:39), (6:57), and (7:17).

He is careful to separate the two ideas. In his view, the concern relates to data center infrastructure and not to technology as a whole, and he says software-related companies were doing fine on the day. He covers this at (7:17) and (7:38).

He then describes how he sees large technology companies in general. In his view, their leaders are trying to position their businesses to maximize profits, they want clarity, and they tend to adapt as political conditions change. He adds that some companies have learned to stay more in the middle. He covers this at (7:52), (8:31), (8:51), and (9:13). This is his opinion about corporate behavior, not a statement of fact, and he could be wrong.

Corey says consumer-facing companies and housing-related companies moved higher on the day, while energy-related companies moved lower along with oil prices. He covers this at (9:13), (9:34), and (10:41).

He offers an explanation for the consumer reaction. In his view, some recent policies, including tariffs and a prolonged overseas conflict, were unpopular with many consumers and were viewed as inflationary. He says that if consumers expect those pressures to ease, they may view that positively. He also says he is guessing about what comes next. He covers this at (9:40), (10:00), (10:21), and (10:25). This is speculation about how people may feel, not a forecast, and conditions can change quickly.

On energy, he says there are structural challenges that may keep oil prices from falling quickly, though an end to a conflict could be one step toward lower prices. He describes the move in energy stocks as a knee-jerk reaction. He also notes that a few companies that tend to be more closely tied to politics, or that have had government involvement, moved lower on the day. He covers this at (11:04), (11:25), (11:30), and (11:51).

Corey says that for long-term investors, this one-day move means very little. In his view, if consumers struggle, the stocks that rose may give back their gains. If data centers continue to be built as planned, related companies may recover. If the economy and advertising spending slow, companies that depend on advertising may decline. He covers this at (12:15) and (12:36).

He closes by saying that investors need to own high-quality assets over the long term and accumulate assets to build wealth for their families, and that nothing about that changed because of an election. He covers this at (12:36) and (12:59). This is a way of framing long-term ownership, not a prediction, and any asset can lose value.

The common thread is the difference between a reaction and a plan. A news event can move prices quickly across many sectors, and some of those moves may reverse. A long-term plan is built around goals, time horizon, and the ability to keep spending through uncomfortable markets, not around the headline of the day.

For most households, the planning questions are less about which direction a political event may push the market and more about how much of a portfolio depends on one theme, whether there is a written plan for periods of volatility, and whether an allocation can be held through a full cycle. A written plan, diversification, and a long time horizon may help manage these risks, though none of them can eliminate the possibility of loss.

This market update is a financial education presentation. It is not personalized investment advice, and it does not recommend any security, company, or strategy. Do your own due diligence before acting on anything you read or hear here. The opinions expressed are Corey's alone, and investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. More disclaimer information is available on the Disclosures page.

News about an election or a policy change is most useful when it prompts better planning questions, such as how your portfolio is positioned for volatility, how a long time horizon relates to the way you save and spend, and how much of your plan depends on a single theme.

Explore the firm's investment planning approach, or contact Ankerstar Wealth to discuss how these themes relate to your own planning questions. Any decision should reflect individual circumstances and a full review of risks, taxes, and trade-offs.