Stock futures on rise due the election result

[李伟王芳 + 77]

U.S. stock index futures are pointing to a strong opening on Wall Street as the baseline consensus forecast for U.S. midterm elections proved correct after Democrats won control of the House, while the GOP hung on to the Senate. Previously, it has been proved that mixed party control is generally the best combination for equity markets. 

[Stephen + 67]

2 minutes ago, 李伟王芳 said:

U.S. stock index futures are pointing to a strong opening on Wall Street as the baseline consensus forecast for U.S. midterm elections proved correct after Democrats won control of the House, while the GOP hung on to the Senate. Previously, it has been proved that mixed party control is generally the best combination for equity markets. 

Highest Consumer Confidence in 18 years and yet Trump loses the House...and by 7 percentage points

[Joanna + 68]

3 minutes ago, 李伟王芳 said:

U.S. stock index futures are pointing to a strong opening on Wall Street as the baseline consensus forecast for U.S. midterm elections proved correct after Democrats won control of the House, while the GOP hung on to the Senate. Previously, it has been proved that mixed party control is generally the best combination for equity markets. 

28 out of 31 candidates Trump publicly endorsed lost.

[Joanna + 68]

4 minutes ago, 李伟王芳 said:

U.S. stock index futures are pointing to a strong opening on Wall Street as the baseline consensus forecast for U.S. midterm elections proved correct after Democrats won control of the House, while the GOP hung on to the Senate. Previously, it has been proved that mixed party control is generally the best combination for equity markets. 

Democrat-friendly sectors, like the biotech cohort which runs counter to Big Pharma, could also get a boost.

[Meanwhile + 49]

6 minutes ago, 李伟王芳 said:

U.S. stock index futures are pointing to a strong opening on Wall Street as the baseline consensus forecast for U.S. midterm elections proved correct after Democrats won control of the House, while the GOP hung on to the Senate. Previously, it has been proved that mixed party control is generally the best combination for equity markets. 

All I know is don't trust stock futures the morning after an election. I nearly learned that the hard way about two years ago. It will calm down in a week

[JohnAtronis + 78]

8 minutes ago, Joanna said:

Democrat-friendly sectors, like the biotech cohort which runs counter to Big Pharma, could also get a boost.

why is biotech democrat friendly?

[Sefko Trafikant + 35]

1 minute ago, JohnAtronis said:

why is biotech democrat friendly?

Dems support research and new enviro friendly tech. Plus, it is mostly headed and employed by immigrants  

[Hajga Loma DK + 47]

3 minutes ago, JohnAtronis said:

why is biotech democrat friendly?

Tightening Immigration Policy Could Hurt The Tech Sector

https://safehaven.com/article/45780/Tightening-Immigration-Policy-Could-Hurt-The-Tech-Sector

 

[Cokiga Damke + 53]

18 minutes ago, 李伟王芳 said:

U.S. stock index futures are pointing to a strong opening on Wall Street as the baseline consensus forecast for U.S. midterm elections proved correct after Democrats won control of the House, while the GOP hung on to the Senate. Previously, it has been proved that mixed party control is generally the best combination for equity markets. 

Futures up. Expected result. Presidents party almost always loses seats in midterms. Nothing to see here. 

[Stephen + 67]

1 minute ago, Cokiga Damke said:

Futures up. Expected result. Presidents party almost always loses seats in midterms. Nothing to see here. 

Still, even if some problems remain unsolved, the businesses will have time to work their way around them.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, 李伟王芳 said:

U.S. stock index futures are pointing to a strong opening on Wall Street as the baseline consensus forecast for U.S. midterm elections proved correct after Democrats won control of the House, while the GOP hung on to the Senate. Previously, it has been proved that mixed party control is generally the best combination for equity markets. 

Let's break this down, shall we: 

"won" control; "hung on" to - Unbiased article?

"Previously" - vague at best.

Previously, it has been "proved" that mixed party control is "generally" the best combination for equity markets. - Which is it, proved or generally?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, Joanna said:

28 out of 31 candidates Trump publicly endorsed lost.

Trump publicly endorsed all Republican candidates.  Are you suggesting that only 3 Republican candidates won their race?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, Sefko Trafikant said:

Dems support research and new enviro friendly tech. Plus, it is mostly headed and employed by immigrants  

That is some kind of statement, or two.  Are there facts to back them up or are we just having a conversation around the water cooler, generally?  I mean "mostly headed and employed by immigrants"?  Really?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, Hajga Loma DK said:

Tightening Immigration Policy Could Hurt The Tech Sector

https://safehaven.com/article/45780/Tightening-Immigration-Policy-Could-Hurt-The-Tech-Sector

 

Says the article listing as example Microsoft, which is headed by Satya Nadella who is from India and is a Democrat.

[NatGasDude + 94]

Biotech has directly benefited and thrived due to tax cuts, and laws that allow experimental drugs and clinical trials to be applied to more people. Abbvie brought  overseas money back to the US after tax cuts passed, and they project an additional 2.5 Billion in new invested capital in the US because of tax cuts.

Trump signed a 'right to try' law on May 30th 2018 that allows patients and biotech companies to bypass the FDA in order to provide a shot at treatment for critically and terminally ill patients.

The consensus among almost all institutions is that Republican congressional control leads to reduced regulations which directly benefits biotech.

From RBC Capital Markets, LLC:

"While we don't necessarily believe Trump and the Democrats would be able to cooperate in this environment to enact meaningful changes, it could yield a more hostile political climate for drug manufacturers through the 2020 election, especially if a Democrat were elected President and the majority were maintained, and thus we would expect sector downside in this scenario," they wrote.

5 hours ago, Hajga Loma DK said:

Tightening Immigration Policy Could Hurt The Tech Sector

https://safehaven.com/article/45780/Tightening-Immigration-Policy-Could-Hurt-The-Tech-Sector

 

Foreign engineers aren't de-facto smarter than Americans, they are being targeted to study at US universities,  and heavily incentivized to work in the US at the expense of American engineers. So many of the greatest advances in modern technology were invented by American scientists and engineers like Claude Shannon(digital circuitry), Francis Crick and James Watson(DNA structure), Chaplin, Fuller and Pearson (first solar cell), Dr. Jonas Salk (polio vaccine), Wilson Greatbatch (inventor of the pacemaker), the list goes on and on. 

The inventor of Keytruda(most promising oncology drug at the moment, label expansion and combination treatments may cure a huge variety of cancers) Gregory Carven, is American, as well as thousands of other doctors and researchers.

Is the modern conclusion that we cannot sustain technological advances unless we have a constant wave of foreign engineers? Are Americans suddenly too STUPID to design or invent anything, and not even worth teaching anymore? Or have we just ignored our own nation's grass roots teachable talent for the past 20 years for the sake of diversity initiatives and cheaper, more accessible foreign talent?

It's easier to staff a lab or research department overnight with foreign talent, than it is to hand pick local talent, but are we missing out on potential innovations from the untapped minds of American students and researchers as well.

It's a chicken or the egg situation. Oversupply of foreign engineers demoralizes American engineers, or demoralized American engineers leaving a vacuum to be filled by foreign engineers? Or profit thirsty companies having a fear of missing out on easy foreign talent, and scooping up as many as they can at the expense of American engineers? I agree that we need foreign talent to continue to be world leaders in tech, but we shouldn't be ruling out the possibility that companies aren't reaching out enough to domestic talent.

On another note, what about the lasting effects of the constant brain drain from China, India, Latin America and Africa to the US? Who will mentor and lead in those countries if all of their best and brightest abandon their places of birth? What are the odds that the situation will improve in those nations if their smartest people only dream of leaving rather than helping their home country develop?

The issues are potentially endless.