In short, Fed policies matter more than party politics. Democratic presidents happened to benefit disproportionately from periods when the Fed was cutting interest rates-which is rocket fuel for stock returns. That's especially true for small stocks, which have returned 26 percentage points more, on average, in years when the Fed was cutting rates rather than raising them. Says Prof. Johnson: 'There's no systematic relationship between the party of the president and asset returns.'

简而言之，美联储的政策比党派政治更重要。民主党总统只是正好赶上了美联储降息的时候多──降息对股市回报可以起到极大的推动作用。对小型股尤其如此。相比美联储加息时，降息时小型股的平均回报率要高出26个百分点。约翰逊说，总统属于哪个党派与资产回报率没有系统性的关系。

What does all this mean for investors? You should cast your vote based on what you believe will benefit the country, not what pundits think will benefit your portfolio. Don't let anyone scare you into making major investment changes because one party or the other takes the White House. No matter who wins, it's the direction of change in interest rates that will make the biggest difference to the returns of the financial markets.

所有这一切对投资者意味着什么？你投票的依据应该是你认为什么将给美国带来好处，而不是专家认为什么将给你的投资组合带来好处。不要因为一个党派或另一个党派控制白宫而让任何人吓得你做出重大投资调整。无论谁胜，利率调整的方向才是对金融市场回报影响最大的因素。

【怎样的美国大选结果对投资者有利?】相关文章：

★ 北京清理中式神翻译标识，搞笑机器翻译真的让人笑掉头……

★ 英国:上班路程越远 挣得越多?

★ 苹果耳机可以偷听另一个房间的对话？怎么回事

★ 请原谅自己,善待自己

★ 在安慰食物季,我的首选是沙拉

★ 美国大学生就业职场出现的新变化

★ 怎样提升沟通技巧？

★ 怎样才能多吃不胖？

★ 世界胡子比赛：评选最给力的“美髯公”

★ 圆滚滚萌萌哒分不清？