Capmark — Capitol + market, in one word. Pick who holds Washington and see what the market actually did under that setup — then check today, screen stocks, and stress-test scenarios. The uncomfortable headline: the economy and the Fed mattered far more than the party in power. Now the Nov 3 midterm is over, the live question is the next one: how markets have reacted when policy itself adjusts — a Fed pivot, a tax change, tariffs, a shutdown fight. That record is up front, just below.
AP called both chambers for the Democrats; the outgoing Republican Congress sits in lame duck until the new one convenes. In Capmark's record this exact setup is the split story of the page: its full-tenure average is the weakest of the six, +4.9%/yr (RBC 1953–2025) — yet the year right after Democrats swept Congress under a Republican president has been positive 7 of 7 times since 1954, about +15% on average (the post-midterm pattern, Section: midterm case study). History is not a prediction — the two numbers measure different windows, and neither forecasts 2027.
Best historical combo: a Democratic president with a divided Congress — the top of six combinations. The worst, at +4.9%, was a Republican president facing a Democratic Congress.
RBC WEALTH MGMT / BLOOMBERG · S&P 500 PRICE RETURN · 1953–2025
Midterm elections since 1950 after which the S&P 500 was higher 12 months later — average gain +15.0%, whoever won. Uncertainty ending beats party winning.
S&P 500 PRICE RETURN AFTER MIDTERMS · 1950–2022
$10,000 in the Dow from 1900 grew to $4.2 million if always invested — but only ~$430K if invested solely under Democratic presidents, ~$99K solely under Republicans. Sitting out the other party was the costliest strategy of all.
CHARLES SCHWAB / NED DAVIS · DOW · 1900–2020
Not advice: Capmark is informational only — not financial advice, and nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. Every figure is historical and dated (closes of Friday, Nov 6, 2026). Past performance does not predict future results.
People make financial decisions from pages like this, so Capmark is built to be checked, not believed. Every figure carries its source, its date, and a credibility badge with a one-line reason. Thin samples are flagged Low instead of averaged into a headline. Conflicts between reputable datasets are shown, not resolved in our favour. Where no sourced figure exists, Capmark prints “unavailable” or “no clean analogue” — it never estimates one into existence. No figure on this page is a prediction, and nothing here is a buy, sell or hold call.
Capmark now publishes two numbers, both computed live from the per-dataset scores in the Credibility Ledger below — neither is typed in, and the Overall score is never hidden.
Core Data Trust — — / 100 (7 datasets): the figures a reader actually trades on — the Daily Brief tape & prices, the Screener, the Watchlist, the stock detail view, the midterm price record, the primary six-combination price returns (RBC), and the peer-reviewed economy scorecard. Every price dataset in Core is now second-source verified: all 39 Screener / Watchlist names match Finnhub on every field (close, day, week, 1-month and YTD) as of the Nov 7, 2026 completion pass, and every index close matches CNBC / AP / FRED.
Overall — — / 100 (20 scored datasets): everything above plus the context & history datasets and the tools. Tools & illustrative — — / 100 (3 scored datasets: the one-stock simulator, Ask It Anything, crypto) are scored separately and stay visible with their own honest scores; they no longer drag Core down, but they do count in Overall. The simulator's ±6-point band is an illustrative construction, not data, so it is excluded from both averages and labelled illustrative wherever it appears.
How each average is built — openly: within each group it is the unweighted mean of that group's per-dataset scores — every dataset counts once. Capmark does not weight by importance, because weighting toward the strongest datasets would flatter the numbers. Splitting is not weighting: both numbers are shown, with their membership stated here and per-dataset group tags in the ledger.
Freshness is the biggest remaining drag — stated plainly. Every price on this page is the Friday, Nov 6, 2026 close, timestamped as such and never presented as live. A snapshot can be perfectly sourced and still go stale: each passing day lowers what these scores can honestly claim. What would lift them further is a daily refresh — rebuilding the tape, Screener and Watchlist from that morning's closes and re-running the second-source check — not a formula change. This page does not fake a live feed.
What these scores are — and are not: they measure data trust — sourcing, method and honesty — not predictive certainty. Some samples are irreducibly small: 19 midterms is 19, and the Scenario Lab holds 30 tagged years; no sourcing can enlarge history, so those datasets cap below perfect by nature. A true 100/100 is not honestly reachable for a history-based market tool, and Capmark does not claim it. Last audited: Nov 7, 2026 (figures as of the Nov 6, 2026 close; second-source validation completed Nov 7, 2026 — CNBC, AP, Reuters, FRED, Finnhub, CME FedWatch reports and Cisco Investor Relations; disagreements found — a 0.01pt S&P rounding difference, a 7-cent SPY vendor difference, MarketBeat outlier prints on several names — are recorded in the ledger, not averaged away).
Reproduce this: pick any figure on the page → find its dataset's row in the Credibility Ledger → the row names both sources and the check date → recompute the group averages from the per-dataset scores printed there; the header numbers must match. The methodology for every calculation is in plain English in the next card, and every correction ever made is in the corrections log.
Full audit, dataset by dataset: the Credibility Ledger — its per-dataset scores are in this expanded view, directly below · every source named: Sources & method notes.
The bookmarked app is where the tools live — email is the reminder that brings you back to them. The free teaser lands daily on market days; Pro gets the full edition in the inbox. Email is also how fresh editions arrive: this page stays the dated Nov 6, 2026 snapshot, while each morning’s email carries that day’s new Brief.
Proposed platform — stated plainly: the proposed email home is Substack ($0 to start; its 10% applies only if paid posts launch there) — proposed, not yet confirmed, and the list does not exist yet, so there is no live signup link to send you to. This static page cannot save your email itself: in the live release this form hands off to the Substack signup; in this preview the button tells you exactly that instead of pretending to subscribe you. Prefer email today? Join the waitlist by email. Informational only — the Brief is history and dated closes, not financial advice.
Six short stops, in order. Each one opens the tool for you — no account, nothing to buy, and the last stop is paper only: you practise with pretend trades before real money is ever involved. History in this app is context, never a signal to trade.
Open the Today tab: the closing tape, the one-line takeaway, the sector heatmap and Friday's movers. Just ask — what moved, and why?
Pick who holds the House, Senate and White House and see the historical average for that exact setup — then copy your “My Washington” card.
The case study now sits collapsed in Today. Expand it only if you want the full 19-bar chart: 19 of 19 positive, +15.0% average vs 6.8%.
Try Fed hiking vs Fed cutting — the comparison this dataset supports best. Read the sample size before the average, every time.
The Screener opens on one screen — Oversold — not all 39 names. Tap a row for its detail; the 12 names marked “In simulator” load in the stock simulator too.
Use the trade planner in the Screener: write down what you would buy, the entry, the stop and why — then check it in a week. Learning without losing.
Six policy forces, 1973–2024 — 30 tagged Scenario Lab years. Headline takeaway: the Fed’s stance is the best-sampled driver — hiking years averaged −3.1%, cutting years +8.1% — while tariffs, deregulation, tax hikes and spending rest on n=1–2 slices or no clean sample, and are shown as episodes, not averages.
Elections decide who holds the levers. What the market prices next is what they do with them — the Fed changing stance, a tax bill, new regulation, tariffs, a shutdown or debt-ceiling fight, a spending programme. Every episode below is a year already in Capmark's Scenario Lab dataset (tagged years, 1973–2024; S&P 500 calendar-year price returns, Slickcharts / S&P Dow Jones Indices series — the Lab's own sources, Section 10). No new dataset, no new figures: each card regroups those same years by the policy that changed, shows the sample size beside every average, and flags the slices too thin to lean on. History only — not a forecast, not advice.
Credibility · Medium Same rating as the Scenario Lab itself: returns are sourced, the policy tags are hand-assigned editorial labels, and the year set is selected, not exhaustive. Any slice with 3 or fewer episodes is rated Low in its card and carries a warning — read its range and its individual years, not its average. ✓ Returns inherit the Lab's spot-checked series · checked Nov 7, 2026 Policy tags: editorial — not second-sourced
The single most repeated policy adjustment in the record — and the one this page's drivers section already ranks above party control. Note the trap in the cutting row: the Fed usually cuts because something is already breaking, so cutting years include both rebounds and crashes.
Episodes: 1974, hiking into an oil shock — −29.7%, Energy led, financials & discretionary lagged. 1995, cutting into a soft landing — +34.1%, Technology & financials led, Energy lagged. 2008, QE begins — −38.5%: QE arrived inside the crisis year, so that return is the crisis, not a verdict on QE; the QE recovery years that followed (2009 +23.5%, 2013 +29.6%) are in the same row above. 2023, on pause — +24.2%, Technology & communication led, utilities lagged.
Tax bills are the fiscal adjustment markets talk about most — and in this dataset the tax year itself explains the least. Every tax-cut year below was dominated by something bigger happening at the same time.
Episodes: 1981, tax cut under Volcker hiking — −9.7%, Energy & staples led, growth & technology lagged. 2001, tax cut into the dot-com bust — −13.0%, staples & healthcare led, technology & telecom lagged. 2003, tax cut in the post-bust rebound — +26.4%, Technology & materials led, utilities & staples lagged. 2018, tax cut alongside hiking, QT and tariffs — −6.2%, healthcare & utilities led, Energy & financials lagged in the Q4 selloff. 2013, the lone tax-hike year — +29.6%, financials & discretionary led, utilities lagged — but 2013 was also a QE year and a shutdown year, so the hike cannot be isolated.
The thinnest slice on this page, shown honestly. The Lab tags exactly one deregulation-wave year — and no year at all as a regulation-tightening wave, so there is no tightening return to quote.
The one episode: 2024 — +23.3%, communication services & financials led, materials lagged. One year, shared with a Fed cutting cycle and the AI boom: it cannot carry a “deregulation return.” What does exist is qualitative, and it lives in the Sector Playbook (Section 08): financials & traditional energy are the classic deregulation-expectation beneficiaries, fossil energy, big banks and pharma pricing the classic tightening headwinds — labelled there as policy exposure and sentiment tendencies, not measured returns.
Two tagged trade-war years — and they point in opposite directions, because the second year brought a Fed pivot to cutting. With n=2, no average is quoted: two years that disagree are anecdotes, not evidence, and both episodes below are the content.
Sectors: Energy lagged in both years — the one consistent sector line in this slice. 2018 was led by healthcare & utilities (the defensive bid in the Q4 selloff, financials lagging); 2019 was led by Technology. The All Drivers map on this page adds the texture: through 2018–19, tariff-escalation headlines repeatedly knocked 5%+ off the S&P 500, with Q4 2018 down ~14% — the damage arrived headline by headline, then partly reversed when the Fed changed stance.
The brinkmanship slice. In this small sample the market mostly looked through these episodes — but every one of the three years had a far larger force running at the same time, which is precisely why the sample can't prove the standoff itself was harmless.
Episodes: 2011, debt ceiling — 0.0%, utilities & healthcare led, financials lagged (the euro crisis, not the standoff, was that year's market story; QE was also running). 2013, shutdown + tax hike — +29.6%, financials & discretionary led, utilities lagged, under QE. 2023, debt ceiling — +24.2%, Technology & communication led (the AI leaders), utilities lagged, in a Fed-pause year. Combined, the three distinct years average +17.9% — a number carried by QE and the AI boom, not by brinkmanship.
Spending programmes — stimulus cheques, infrastructure bills, industrial policy — are the adjustment with no mixer and no tag in the Scenario Lab. There is no spending-only sample to average, and this card refuses to manufacture one.
Nearest analogues — QE + recession years (not spending effects): 2009 — +23.5%, financials & technology led the rebound, utilities & staples lagged. 2020 — +16.3%, Technology & discretionary led, Energy & financials lagged. Both are crisis-and-QE years in which stimulus spending was one ingredient among several. Qualitative only, from the Sector Playbook: infrastructure and industrial spending has historically been a tailwind for industrials & materials — a policy-exposure tendency, not a measured return.
Compare two policy worlds, A vs B: tap any “Load in the Lab” button — it clears the Lab, sets that one policy force, and takes you straight there. In the Lab, tap Set as Scenario A, come back and load a second policy, then tap Set as Scenario B — the two mixes sit side by side with their own years, averages, ranges and sample-size warnings. Hiking vs cutting is the comparison this dataset supports best; anything built on an n=1 or n=2 slice above will say so again in the Lab.
Every dataset behind the tools above, one tap away: chamber-by-chamber Dow history, presidents, 13 eras, the economy scorecard, sectors, crypto, and the credibility audit of this whole page.
The glanceable list: ticker, company, Friday's close, the day's move in dollars and percent, and a sparkline per name. Tap any row for its full detail view — chart, key stats, and its verified news. One calm rule: green and red here mean only up and down on the day.
Credibility · High Same calculated dataset as the Screener — Yahoo Finance daily closes, Friday, Nov 6, 2026, second-source validated Nov 7, 2026: all 39 of 39 names confirmed against Finnhub on every field (see the ledger's Screener row for the per-name record). Day change in $ is derived exactly from the close and Friday's % change. ✓ Verified by 2 sources · Yahoo + Finnhub · all 39 names · checked Nov 7, 2026 Snapshot · Nov 6, 2026 close · Not live
How to read the sparkline: five real anchor closes per name — start of year (Dec 31, 2025), one month ago, one week ago, yesterday, and Friday's close — each derived from that name's sourced % changes in this same dataset. The dots are data; the line joining them is a join, not a daily price path. Colour follows Friday's direction only.
Every item below is drawn from the reporting already compiled in this edition's Daily Brief, grouped by the Washington driver, sector or ticker it belongs to — with its source and date named on the item itself. There is no live news feed behind this page, and no headline appears here without a source. A ticker with no verified item says so in its detail view rather than borrowing one.
Credibility · Medium Compiled from AP, CNBC, Reuters and Bloomberg reporting, BLS and Federal Reserve releases and published schedules, and CME FedWatch readings via dated reports, as cited in the Nov 7, 2026 Daily Brief — every item names its source; the FedWatch item added in the Nov 7 validation pass carries timestamped readings. Not a live feed.
AP projected Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate, flipping Senate seats in Iowa, Kansas, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas. Alaska and Mississippi Senate races were still uncalled on Nov 7, so Capmark states no exact seat counts — only AP's call of chamber control, which does not depend on those two races. Counts become final only when states certify. The new Congress convenes Jan 3, 2027: a Republican president facing a Democratic House and Senate.
Friday's jobs report came in strong: chips recovered ~4% and the S&P 500 clawed back +0.32% on the day — a bounce after Thursday's rout, on a week the S&P still finished −2.7%.
Consensus 3.9% year over year (CNBC survey) vs 3.7% in September, core 2.6%. It is the last CPI before the Dec 8–9 FOMC — the print of the week ahead, listed here from the published release schedule, not as a forecast.
CME FedWatch — the primary source for rate-futures odds — read 72.8% for a 25bp December hike before Friday's payrolls (reported Nov 6) and ~77–79% after the +165K print (Investopedia; Seeking Alpha). CNBC's live coverage had them near 70% earlier in the session. The odds move intraday, so Capmark quotes the timestamped range, never a single untimed print. This item restores a figure removed in the trust audit, now that a primary-source reading is on the record.
The S&P 500 fell 4.4% on Thursday and the chip index ~12.3% — the worst session since the April 2025 tariff shock — after incoming Democratic leaders put AI regulation, including a proposed pause on advanced AI development and data-centre scrutiny, at the top of the agenda, and a widely read research note called the end of the AI trade. Most relevant to NVDA, AMD, AVGO, SMH and PLTR in the watchlist.
The oil gauge USO closed Friday at $148.41, down 12.1% on the week — the geopolitical channel moving faster than the political one, and the reason Energy's week (−12.0% on the sector gauge) was an oil move, not a stock story. Most relevant to XOM, CVX and COP.
AMD traded 1.8× its 20-day average volume on Friday, ahead of TSLA (+4.2%), PLTR (+3.5%) and NVDA (+2.8%). This item is a price fact from the dated dataset, labelled as such — not a news report.
From Friday's close, Nov 6, 2026 — midterm week — for the next session, Monday, Nov 9. End-of-day closes, not live quotes. One line: the relief rally lasted one day, Thursday was the worst session since April 2025, Friday was a bounce — not a recovery. Full narrative, movers and levels are one tap below.
Credibility · High Prices computed from Yahoo Finance daily closes dated Nov 6, 2026. Second-source validation, Nov 7, 2026: every index close on this tape was confirmed against CNBC's closing reports and AP — S&P 500 7,376.86, Nasdaq 24,579.42, Dow 51,285.73, VIX 25.64, 10-year 4.86% — with FRED's S&P series confirming Thursday's 7,353.73. Narrative from AP, CNBC and Reuters reporting — named in the ledger. ✓ Verified by 2 sources · CNBC + AP / FRED · checked Nov 7, 2026 · Nov 6 close — not live
Framing ready for the daily edition: each morning's Brief opens with this same four-line diff against the prior close — same fields, new numbers, only after the new close exists and is second-source checked.
The daily habit: check Today each market morning, the Lab once a week. The email teaser (Track 3, above) is the reminder that carries each new edition — this page itself stays the dated Nov 6 snapshot until it is rebuilt.
Tuesday — the election. Democrats won both chambers of Congress in the Nov 3 midterms (AP projections of chamber control; Senate flips in Iowa, Kansas, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas; Alaska and Mississippi Senate races still uncalled on Nov 7, so no exact seat counts are stated — they are final only on state certification).
Wednesday — the relief rally. With the result decided and accepted, uncertainty cleared: the Dow jumped ~3.1% (+1,569 points, its best day since April 2025) and the S&P 500 rose ~1.7%. It lasted one session.
Thursday — the rout. The S&P 500 fell 4.4%, the Nasdaq 5.5% (into correction, ~12% below its October record) and the chip index ~12.3% — the worst day since the April 2025 tariff shock. The trigger was not gridlock arithmetic; it was AI policy: incoming Democratic leaders put AI regulation — including a proposed pause on advanced AI development and data-center scrutiny — at the top of the agenda for the Congress that convenes Jan 3, 2027, and a widely read research note called the end of the AI trade.
Friday — a bounce, plus a strong jobs report. October payrolls rose +165K with unemployment at 4.1% (BLS, via reporting), chips recovered ~4%, and the S&P clawed back +0.32%. For the week: S&P −2.7%, Nasdaq −3.4%, Dow −0.9%. Year to date the S&P is still +7.8%.
The new setup, from Jan 3, 2027: a Republican president facing a Democratic House and Senate — this app's “Republican president, Democratic Congress” combination. Until then, the outgoing Republican Congress sits in a lame-duck session; current law and policy do not change on election night.
What Capmark's history says about that setup: its full-tenure average is the weakest of the six combinations, +4.9%/yr (RBC 1953–2025) — a bucket dominated by 1970s stagflation. But its post-midterm first years tell the opposite story: positive 7 of 7 since 1954, ~+15% on average. Both numbers are in the data. Neither is a forecast — and this week's action proved the point in real time: the market's first read was the historical pattern (Wednesday), its second read was a specific policy fear the averages can't see (Thursday).
Also in the channel: Democratic control shifts the tax-legislation outlook for the second half of the term (PwC's post-election note), and oil fell on raised odds of an negotiated end to the Iran war — the geopolitical channel moving faster than the political one.
Select Sector SPDR ETFs. The month tells the story the day hides: over the past month money left technology (−16.7%) and communication services and moved into health care (+9.9%), staples (+8.0%) and real estate (+7.7%) — a defensive rotation. Energy's week (−12.0%) was the oil move, not a stock story. Toggle the window:
Friday: technology bounced hardest (+1.5%) off Thursday's rout on 1.8× normal volume — a bounce inside a downtrend: XLK still sits 12.6% below its 50-day average with RSI at 29. Staples (−1.3%) gave back a little of the defensive bid.
Top gainers
Top losers
Unusual volume Friday: AMD 1.8× its 20-day average · XLK (tech) 1.8× · NVDA 1.6× · semis (SMH) 1.5× · PFE 1.4×. The bounce was traded, not drifted into.
Computed from Friday's closes (SPY): price $735.29 — 0.7% above its 200-day average ($730.38) and 4.0% below its 50-day ($765.68); 5.9% below the 52-week high ($781.62); RSI 35. The Nasdaq-100 ETF (QQQ) is below both averages (−9.0% vs 50-day, −3.6% vs 200-day, RSI 31) and 14.0% below its high — tech is the broken chart; the Dow ETF is the intact one (−1.5% vs 50-day, +1.1% vs 200-day). No desk support/resistance levels are quoted here: the levels circulating in one desk note were that author's own unverified estimates, so they were removed from this edition rather than left looking verified — only levels computed from Friday's closes, above, are shown. Re-checked Nov 7: the only S&P levels found in the validation pass were again an unnamed newsletter's own estimates — still not a named desk — so they stay removed.
The honest posture line: breadth rotated defensive for a month, volatility is elevated but off its peak, and Tuesday's CPI now matters more than the election does. History's post-midterm pattern says the year after a midterm has been strong — this page's featured case study — but patterns describe averages, and this average is being priced against a live policy fight over the market's biggest trade. Informational only: no recommendation is made or implied anywhere in this brief.
The universe is 39 liquid names — 38 large-caps plus SMH — but you never start with all 39. The Screener opens on a single screen, Oversold (14 names), because the 30-second promise only works one screen at a time. Every figure is computed from Yahoo Finance daily closes, Friday, Nov 6, 2026 (same dated snapshot as the Brief, not a live feed). Counts sit on every screen button. Each row says why it's here — which screens it hits — and whether it loads in the simulator: only 12 names are in the one-stock simulator; the other 27 are marked “Detail only” and open their full detail view instead. SMH is an ETF basket, not a company — it overlaps NVDA, AVGO and AMD, which are also listed individually. In the full-universe view, the five names that hit no screen on Nov 6 — AMZN, JPM, GS, CVX, UNH — are badged “No screen hit”: they are market context, not setups, on this date. RSI = 14-day Wilder; relative volume = Friday vs its 20-day average. Second-source check (completed Nov 7, 2026): all 39 of the 39 names were cross-checked against Finnhub — every name matched on close and day change, and every name matched on week, 1-month and YTD changes too (16 in the first pass, the remaining 23 in the completion pass); third-vendor outlier prints (MarketBeat on JPM, LLY, MA, BAC, CAT, UNP, DIS) are flagged in the ledger, where Finnhub agrees with Capmark on each. No name in this universe is single-source.
Credibility · High All figures calculated by formula from dated daily closes (formulas stated above and in the ledger). Snapshot, not live — prices move on; these don't. ✓ Verified by 2 sources · Yahoo + Finnhub · all 39 names, every field · checked Nov 7, 2026
| Stock | Close | Fri | 1-Mo | RSI | From 52-wk high | Watch |
|---|
A screen is a filter, not a verdict: “oversold” names include both washed-out leaders (NVDA, RSI 31) and falling knives (CAT, RSI 21 after a −29.8% month) — the columns beside the RSI are how you tell them apart. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security.
Built from the screener's ＋ Watch buttons. Session only — it lives in this page's memory and clears when you close it; nothing is saved or sent anywhere.
Nothing watched yet — tap ＋ Watch on any row above.
The arithmetic every desk runs first: given an account, a risk budget and a stop, how many shares — and what the trade pays at target versus what it costs at the stop. Pure math on your inputs; it does not judge the trade.
Shares = (account × risk%) ÷ (entry − stop), rounded down. Excludes commissions, slippage, gaps through the stop and taxes — a stop is a plan, not a guarantee of that exit price. Planning arithmetic only, not advice.
Credibility · High
Sourced fields come from the same calculated dataset as the Screener (Yahoo Finance daily closes). Figures marked Derived are exact arithmetic on those sourced figures, with the method stated. Anything this dataset does not contain is shown as Unavailable — never estimated.
✓ Verified by 2 sources · Yahoo + Finnhub agree on close, day, week, 1-month & YTD for all 39 names · checked Nov 7, 2026 · Snapshot: Nov 6, 2026 close — not live
The Nov 3, 2026 midterm is over, so this study is now background, not the headline — collapsed by default, one tap to expand. The full 19-bar chart, method note and sources are unchanged inside. Why each year happened — era by era — is in the Deep Dive below.
Credibility · High Primary index data (Capital Group / RIMES / S&P) with the method disclosed; complete run of 19 midterms, 1950–2022. The two newest bars are labelled where they differ: 2018–19 from Capital Group's later edition, 2022–23 calculated from S&P closes. ✓ Second-source checked · Capital Group / RIMES series · checked Nov 7, 2026 · n=19 — small sample by nature
19 midterms, 1950–2023 — all 19 positive. Average +15.0% one year after a midterm vs 6.8% in all other years. The 2026 midterm's one-year window doesn't close until November 2027, so it isn't in the chart yet.
Average one-year return after a midterm election — across all 19 midterm years, 1950–2023.
GREENBUSH FINANCIAL GROUP · CAPITAL GROUP, RIMES, S&P
Average one-year return in all other years over the same span. The post-midterm year averaged more than double — a gap of 8.2 points.
SAME SERIES · SAME METHOD · SEE NOTE BELOW
Midterm years in the chart finished the following year positive — the weakest, 1986–87 and 2010–11, still gained 3%. The strongest, 1954–55, gained 34%.
PRICE RETURN ONLY · DIVIDENDS EXCLUDED
How to read it: the gold dashed line marks the 15.0% post-midterm average; the grey dashed line marks 6.8%, the average for all other years. Every bar in the chart clears zero — but the spread runs from 3% to 34%, and the chart alone doesn't tell you why. The era explorer in Pro puts each of these years in its political, economic and geopolitical context.
Method, as sourced: Calculations use Election Day as the starting date in all election years, and November 5th as a proxy for the starting date in other years. Only midterm election years are shown in the chart. Sources: Capital Group, RIMES, Standard & Poor's — chart via Greenbush Financial Group. Capital Group's later edition (as of Dec 31, 2021) reports 2018–19 at 11.7%. 2022–23 is +14.5% price-only, computed from S&P 500 closes of 3,828.11 on Nov 8, 2022 to 4,382.78 on Nov 8, 2023. The 2026 midterm's one-year window does not close until November 2027, so it cannot be included yet. These are historical price returns only (dividends excluded): what happened, not a prediction of what will happen, and not investment advice.
Anyone can quote the 15.0% midterm number at you. Capmark Pro lets you interrogate it — run your own money through every Washington in history, test a real stock under each setup, walk all 13 eras, and ask plain-English questions answered only from sourced data. That depth is the product.
The hook — yours to keep, no card, no account.
$4.92 a month — 30% off the $7 monthly rate. Founding rate, locked in. 7-day free trial.7-day free trial
Start for the price of a coffee. Cancel anytime, keep the preview forever. 7-day free trial.7-day free trial
One payment, Capmark for good — pays back in about 19 months at $7/mo. First 100 only — then this plan is retired and never sold again.
Every Pro section: the Screener with its watchlist and trade planner, the future scenario simulator, the one-stock symbol simulator with its sector panel, Ask It Anything, chamber-by-chamber Dow analysis, the president-by-president ranking, the 13-era explorer, the economy scorecard, the sector playbook, the Bitcoin & Ethereum section and the real-drivers briefings — plus the second six-combination dataset. The Daily Brief stays free.
No. It's a historical data explorer — what happened under each Washington, with sources — plus a dated daily brief and planning arithmetic. No buy, sell or hold calls, no predictions, no live prices. History to think with, not instructions to trade on.
In this build, it doesn't — the paywall is paused for validation and everything is open so the data can be checked (see the Credibility Ledger). The flow shown here is the Stripe-ready design for the live release: pick a plan → Stripe checkout (card / Apple Pay) → Pro unlocks when Stripe confirms. This preview’s checkout step charges nothing and opens the full app for your session so you can judge it. Pricing is $7/mo, $59/yr ($4.92/mo on annual) and $129 founding lifetime (first 100 only, then retired), with a 7-day free trial on monthly & annual; new checkout links for this pricing are coming, so checkout goes live once those links are created; cancel anytime on paid plans.
Answered only from this page's datasets — combinations, chambers, presidents, eras, sectors, stocks. If the data can't answer, it says so. Not a live feed, not advice.
Credibility · Medium Answers are assembled only from the datasets on this page, each with its own rating in the Credibility Ledger — an answer is only as strong as the dataset behind it, and the source is printed with every answer.
Flip the three levers — President, House, Senate. House + Senate together set the “Congress” category in the long-run studies; split chambers = divided Congress, the gridlock setup markets are famous for liking. Your result card is copy-ready.
Credibility · Medium Returns are the primary dataset — RBC Wealth Management / Bloomberg figures reached via secondary summaries, 1953–2025, price-only. The alternative 1926–2023 dataset in Section 03 ranks some combinations differently and is shown there as a labelled alternative only; it is never blended into these figures. Window choice moves the answer. ✓ Table corroborated verbatim · RBC / Bloomberg via multiple republications · checked Nov 7, 2026
Tap to flip control. The result updates instantly.
An illustration, not a forecast: the selected setup's historical average, compounded smoothly. Real markets never move this smoothly — the average hides crashes and booms inside it.
Math: amount × (1 + historical average)years, using the RBC Wealth Management 1953–2025 average for the setup selected above. Past performance does not predict future results.
Testing the gridlock hypothesis: pick a Washington, an amount and a horizon — see the range of outcomes its history implies, not one smooth line. The sector panel below moves with the same pick.
Credibility · Medium Base path uses the sourced RBC averages (Medium, above). The ±6-point downside/upside band is an illustrative estimate, not a statistic — flagged wherever it appears. The stock simulator's prices are real (Yahoo adjusted closes) but per-setup samples run just 2–8 years.
Six president–Congress combinations (RBC 1953–2025 averages). This also drives the sector explorer below — and stays in sync with the levers in Section 01.
How the range is built: the base path compounds at the selected combination's RBC 1953–2025 average annual S&P 500 price return. The downside and upside paths sit 6 points below and above that average — an illustrative band, roughly the spread between a weak decade and a strong one for a diversified index, not a statistical confidence interval and not a forecast. Contributions are added at each year-end; taxes, fees, dividends and inflation are excluded. History's own odds check: across 49 Congresses (1927–2025, CRSP total return), 83% of unified-government terms and 80% of divided-government terms finished positive over two years — positive was common under every setup; the size varied.
Type a symbol and this simulates that stock under the combination picked above (Unified Democratic government — change it with the buttons in step 1). Method: 2,000 simulated paths, each built by resampling the stock's actual calendar-year returns from the years that kind of Washington was in charge — a bootstrap of its real behaviour, not a model of its future. Covered: 12 long-history stocks (see the list under the results). Prices are dividend- and split-adjusted, so returns include dividends.
How to read the “confidence” figure: it is a historical frequency — the share of the 2,000 bootstrapped paths that ended above the starting amount. It is not a probability that the future will cooperate, not a guarantee, and not investment advice. Past performance does not predict future results. Single stocks are far wilder than the index: their ranges here are honestly wide, and resampling past years cannot produce a kind of year the stock has never had.
For the combination selected above: the sectors history and policy exposure have favoured, and the ones they have pressured. Read these as tilts, not measured per-combination returns — no major study publishes a clean sector-return table sliced by all six combinations (see the honesty note under the leaderboard). Where a hard number exists, it is shown with its source and window.
These are the hardest sector figures available, and they carry a lesson of their own: the winner depends on the window. Technology leads every 12-month post-midterm window; healthcare and financials lead the short fourth-quarter window — then financials finish last over 12 months.
Honesty note: sector evidence is thinner than index evidence. The ETF-era studies rest on just six midterm cycles (sector ETFs only launched in 1998); “communication services” as a sector only exists since 2018; and technology has been the market's strongest sector across all four recent presidencies regardless of party (BlackRock data via Lido Advisors) — so tech's lead may be an era effect wearing a political costume. Correlation is not causation, here most of all.
Real years arrive with five forces at once. Stack stances below — the Lab finds the historical years (1973–2024, hand-tagged) where all of them were in play, and shows those years' S&P 500 returns. The sample size is the headline: most mixes have happened only a handful of times, and the Lab says so.
Credibility · Medium S&P 500 returns are sourced (Slickcharts / S&P DJI series), but the force tags are hand-assigned editorial labels and the dataset is 30 selected years out of 52 — matches of 1–6 years are stories, and the Lab labels them so. ✓ Return series spot-checked vs a second table · checked Nov 7, 2026 Force tags: editorial — not second-sourced
Choose one stance per force, or leave a force on “Any.” The tighter the mix, the fewer historical years match — that trade-off is the lesson. Scenario A updates live; snapshot it, change the mix, and snapshot B to compare.
Dataset: 30 hand-tagged years, 1973–2024. S&P 500 figures are calendar-year price returns (Slickcharts / S&P Dow Jones Indices annual series, cross-checked against the Coin Metrics-checked year-end level tables). Force tags are the standard historical characterizations used elsewhere on this page (NBER recession dates; Fed policy history; the era explorer's record). Sector leaders/laggards are the documented sector story of each matched year, summarized qualitatively — not a per-year sector return table, which no single source publishes for the full span. Crypto appears only for matched years from 2013 on, using the calendar-year returns in the crypto section. Averages over tiny samples are shown because the sample size is shown beside them — treat anything under about ten years as narrative, not evidence. Not a forecast; not investment advice.
Every president–Congress pairing, ranked. Two reputable datasets are built in — and they disagree, because the answer depends on which years you count. Capmark now designates one as primary and the other as a labelled alternative — they are never blended or averaged together, anywhere on this page. Switch and watch the ranking move. That instability is the lesson.
Credibility · Medium Primary: RBC Wealth Management / Bloomberg, S&P 500 price returns, 1953–2025 — the dataset behind the builder, the simulator base and this chart's default view. Alternative: Retirement Researcher via WT Wealth Management, 1926–2023, four-way split only. The method difference is the period and the split: the alternative starts in 1926 (Great Depression included) and cannot separate all six combinations; the primary starts in 1953 and can. Both reached via secondary summaries — the reason neither scores High. ✓ Primary table corroborated verbatim · checked Nov 7, 2026 · alternative shown, never blended
Capmark's primary is RBC 1953–2025: it covers all six combinations on one consistent method (S&P 500 price returns), and it is the only dataset the builder, simulator and headline figures draw on. The 1926–2023 alternative is shown for comparison only — never averaged with the primary. The 1926–2023 window includes the Great Depression and the long Democratic dominance of Congress from the 1930s–1990s; the 1953–2025 window starts after WWII and weights the modern era more. Neither proves a party causes returns. Princeton economists Blinder & Watson found roughly half the Democratic-era economic edge traces to factors economists classify as luck — more benign oil shocks, stronger productivity, a friendlier world economy — not policy. Small samples (some combos cover barely a decade of years) swing averages wildly.
Your questions 1–4, taken one chamber at a time first, then together. One dataset — Mike Patton's Dow Jones analysis of 1946–2020 — breaks returns down by each lever separately. Read the single-chamber numbers with care: they overlap heavily (a Democratic Senate usually coincided with a Democratic House), and a 2025 American Economic Association paper covering 94 years found no statistically reliable premium for either chamber alone once combinations are accounted for.
Credibility · Medium Single-analyst compilation (Patton, Dow 1946–2020, via Forbes) — a long 75-year sample and transparent method, but not peer-reviewed, and a 2025 AEA paper disputes single-chamber premiums outright.
Each row conditions on that one lever only, whoever held the others (Patton / Integrity Wealth Management, via Forbes, 75 years of Dow data). Every single arrangement was positive — the full range across all his scenarios runs from +6.3% to +12.9%.
Why the Republican-chamber rows run higher here: Republican House/Senate years in 1946–2020 cluster in the low-inflation 1950s and the 1995–2007 stretch, while Democratic-chamber years absorb the inflationary 1970s and the 2007–09 crisis Congress. It is the same era luck seen everywhere else on this page — and the split-Congress row (+12.9%) beats every single-party row in this dataset.
Average annual Dow Jones Industrial Average gain, 1900–2018, dividends excluded. Nominal vs inflation-adjusted (real) tells two different stories — inflation ate far more of the Democratic-Congress years, which clustered in the high-inflation 1970s.
Source: Forecast-Chart compilation of Dow/economic data, periods 1900–2018 (Dow). Ned Davis Research, via Schwab, puts the inflation-adjusted Dow since 1900 at +3.8%/yr under Democratic presidents vs +1.1% under Republicans — same direction, different method.
Three serious studies, three different answers — because each defines “divided,” picks different years, and counts dividends differently.
Honest read: depending on method, unified government wins big, divided government wins narrowly, or it's a statistical tie. Anyone quoting one study as settled truth is selling something.
Questions 5 and 6, name by name: S&P 500 annualized price return since Reagan (totals are price-only, dividends excluded). Notice what the ranking is really measuring — starting point luck. Obama began at a crisis bottom; George W. Bush began at a bubble top and ended in a financial crisis. Clinton rode the internet boom; Trump and Biden both rode recoveries and the AI build-out.
Credibility · Medium Compiled from TD Economics / Bloomberg figures via secondary summaries; the two compilations on this page differ by a few points on the same presidents (window and dividend conventions) — disclosed in the note under the ranking. Six presidents only: starting-point luck dominates.
Longer view: TD Economics/Bloomberg data through 2024 puts the average annual S&P 500 return since 1946 at just over 10% under Democratic presidents vs just over 6% under Republicans — a gap researchers attribute substantially to which crises and booms happened to land in which terms, not to party policy alone. Total gain by term tells the same timing story in the longer compilations too — Eisenhower +129% and Truman +87% (TD Economics/Bloomberg via Cabot). Note the two compilations on this page differ by a few points on the same presidents (e.g. Obama +182% price-only in the cards above vs +189% in Cabot's) because of window and dividend conventions; treat any single figure as approximate.
Question 7 and 8, era by era. Pick a period to see who held each lever, what the Dow and S&P 500 did, what was happening in the world — wars, oil shocks, pandemics — and the socioeconomic forces (inflation, jobs, wages, debt) that usually mattered more than the politics.
Credibility · Medium Narrative compiled from multiple secondary sources; era market totals are approximate and convention-dependent. The in-progress Trump II era is explicitly provisional. Best used as context, not as a return dataset.
Markets don't float above the economy. The most-cited academic comparison — Blinder & Watson, Princeton, published in the American Economic Review — covers Truman's elected term through Obama's first term. An Economic Policy Institute update through the Biden era points the same direction. Both carry the authors' own warning: the gap is real in the data, and roughly half of it looks like luck.
Credibility · High The strongest sourcing on the page: a peer-reviewed American Economic Review paper (Blinder & Watson, Princeton) plus an EPI update, over 1949–2023, with official NBER recession dates. The caveat is interpretive — the authors attribute roughly half the gap to luck.
| Measure (annual average) | Democratic presidents | Republican presidents | Source & period |
|---|---|---|---|
| Real GDP growth | 4.33% | 2.54% | Blinder & Watson · 1949–2012 |
| Real GDP growth (updated) | 3.79% | 2.60% | EPI · 1949–2023 |
| Job creation rate | 2.59% | 1.17% | Blinder & Watson · 1949–2012 |
| Job growth (updated) | 2.47% | 1.07% | EPI · 1949–2023 |
| Average unemployment rate | 5.41% | 6.01% | EPI · 1949–2023 |
| Unemployment change over a term | −0.8 pts | +1.1 pts | Blinder & Watson |
| Budget deficit (% of potential GDP) | 2.1% | 2.8% | Blinder & Watson |
| Recessions that began in office, 1953–2020 | 1 of 11 | 10 of 11 | NBER dates |
Why did recessions cluster where they did? Partly policy, partly inheritance and timing: the 1973 and 1979 oil shocks, the dot-com bust (2000), the housing bubble (2008) and COVID (2020) each landed in a Republican term, while Democratic terms more often began in recovery. Social factors compound the effect — consumer confidence, wage growth and productivity waves (the 1990s internet build-out, today's AI build-out) tend to matter more to earnings than any single law. Correlation with a party is not causation by a party — Blinder & Watson themselves could not explain the gap with fiscal or monetary policy differences.
Party control moves sectors more reliably than it moves the whole market, because platforms translate into regulation, spending and tax policy. These are historical tendencies in sentiment and policy exposure — not return guarantees. In the 12 months after midterms, across recent cycles, technology led, then consumer discretionary and communication services, while defensives and financials trailed (Bloomberg/Ameriprise, midterm cycles 2002–2022).
Credibility · Medium Measured windows rest on as few as six ETF-era midterm cycles (sector ETFs exist only from 1998), and the winner flips with the window — both disclosed in the leaderboard. The per-party tilts are qualitative policy exposure, not measured per-combination returns; no such dataset exists.
Under split control, history favors the incumbents of the moment: gridlock freezes the regulatory status quo, which is why post-midterm leadership has usually come from growth sectors already working — technology above all in the AI era — plus industrials carried by bipartisan defense and infrastructure money.
Kept separate from every stock figure on this page — and the sample is the story: Bitcoin has priced history only from ~2010, Ethereum from 2015. That's parts of four presidencies and three midterm cycles, against 125 years of stocks. Where the Washington lens applies honestly, it's applied; where it can't, this section says so.
Credibility · Medium Calendar-year returns cross-checked across two exchange-close series (they differ by a few points in early years — immature data, disclosed). Term figures are calculated from year-end prices, as labelled. Sample is four presidencies and three midterms: too short for the averages the stock sections use, and none are claimed.
Selected calendar-year returns and year-end prices. The scale is the first thing to absorb: Bitcoin's best and worst years are each roughly ten times the S&P 500's best and worst presidential terms on this page.
Source: calendar-year returns and closes compiled from exchange daily closes (cryptocurrencyhistory.com BTC record), consistent with the Coin Metrics reference-rate / CoinMarketCap year-end tables (2017 year-end $13,921, 2020 +305%, 2024 +121% in that series — early crypto prices differ a few points by exchange and series, which is itself part of the record's immaturity).
Ethereum exists only from July 2015, so its entire history fits inside three presidencies. Its swings run even larger than Bitcoin's — in both directions.
Source: calendar-year returns and closes compiled from exchange daily closes (cryptocurrencyhistory.com ETH record), cross-checked against the Coin Metrics / CoinMarketCap year-end table (2017 +9,034%, 2018 −82.4%, 2020 +475%, 2022 −67.6% in that series).
End-to-end figures below are simple arithmetic on the sourced year-end prices in the panels above (year-end before the term to year-end at its close — an approximation of a term, since inaugurations fall in January). Read the middle of each term, not just the endpoints: every crypto term so far contains a collapse of 60% or more.
House and Senate: crypto's priced history covers only a handful of chamber flips (2014, 2018, 2022 midterms; unified and split setups each lasting two to four years). Slicing a decade of violently cyclical prices by chamber would manufacture precision the data doesn't hold — so, plainly, no per-chamber and no six-combination crypto returns are shown on this page, because no honest version of them exists yet. Anyone publishing “Bitcoin's average return under a Democratic Senate” is averaging two or three boom-and-bust years and calling it politics.
The featured case study averages 19 stock midterm cycles back to 1950. Crypto has had three midterms with a following year to measure. Both complete, sourced following-years are shown — and no average is computed from two observations.
For scale only: the S&P 500's post-midterm average in the featured case study is +15.0%. Both crypto assets beat it in 2023 and split in 2019 — and the midterm years themselves (2018, 2022) contained calendar-year falls of −73%/−82% and −64%/−67%. The election calendar is not what drives these assets; the four-year boom-bust cycle has swamped it every time so far. Sources: the calendar-year series in the panels above. The 2014 midterm's following year is not tabulated here — the early-exchange data is too fragmented across series to quote one figure responsibly.
This is the context the return figures need. The S&P 500's worst full presidential term on this page totals −30%. Bitcoin has lost more than twice that inside single calendar years, and its peak-to-trough falls are in another league entirely.
Sources: Plutus Capital Management, crypto drawdown history 2011–2022 · GrowYourEthereum, ETH drawdown record (Coinbase closes) · LedgerTouch BTC/ETH risk comparison (Coinbase closes, 2016–2026). Drawdown percentages vary a few points by exchange and series; the orders of magnitude do not.
Bitcoin and Ethereum have produced the largest returns and the largest losses on this page, inside the shortest history, driven mainly by their own adoption and leverage cycles — halvings, manias, exchange failures, ETF launches — with macro conditions (the 2020 easing, the 2022 tightening) mattering far more visibly than which party held which chamber. Four presidencies and three midterms cannot support the kind of averages the stock sections are built on, and this section refuses to fake them. Everything above is historical and sourced; none of it is a prediction, and none of it is a recommendation to buy, sell or hold either asset.
If party control were the main driver, the studies above would agree. They don't — because these four forces swamp the partisan signal.
Credibility · Medium Interpretive synthesis of the sections above — each underlying claim traces to a sourced dataset on this page, but the “swamps the partisan signal” framing is this page's editorial conclusion, stated as such.
Volcker's rate shock (1979–82) ended inflation and launched a 40-year bull market; zero rates and QE powered the 2010s; the 2022 hiking cycle produced a bear market under a Democratic president, and easing hopes powered the recovery. No president or Congress sets the funds rate — yet it explains more market variance than any election.
The 1990s internet build-out (Clinton), the smartphone/cloud era (Obama–Trump) and the AI build-out (Biden–Trump II) each lifted earnings across party lines. Clinton's record +15.2%/yr is inseparable from the dot-com wave; the wave would have flattered either party.
Oil embargoes (1973, 1979), 9/11, the Iraq War, Russia's invasion of Ukraine (2022 energy shock) and tariff wars move markets violently and land in whichever term is unlucky. Ten of eleven recessions from 1953–2020 began under Republican presidents — largely the economy's cycle colliding with the calendar, per Blinder & Watson's luck finding.
Starting valuation predicts returns better than party. Obama inherited a crashed market in 2009 and posted +13.8%/yr; George W. Bush inherited a bubble peak in 2001 and posted the only negative modern term. Buying the bottom beats picking the party.
The full map: 31 drivers across social, geopolitical and core economic forces, each with real example years and a strength-of-evidence label — including the ones that are mostly narrative. Drivers marked ▸ IN THE SCENARIO LAB mix directly into the Lab above.
Credibility · Medium The historical episodes in each card are sourced, but the strength-of-evidence grades are this page's editorial judgement — criteria are stated in the ledger. Drivers graded “weak” or “mostly narrative” are presented as unverified patterns, not facts.
Evidence labels are this page's editorial grading of the historical record behind each driver — how consistently the force has coincided with measurable market effects, across how many episodes. “Strong” still does not mean predictable: public health is graded strong because 2020 happened, not because anyone can time the next one. Sources are named inside each card; the master list is in Section 10.
Every dataset on this page, audited for this review build (November 2026) and second-source validated on Nov 7, 2026 against CNBC, AP, Reuters, FRED, Finnhub, CME FedWatch reports and primary company sources — each row records both sources and the check date where a check was made, and says “single-source” where none was. Ratings weigh five things: source authority (primary/official vs secondary), sample size, date range & freshness, method transparency, and whether each figure is directly sourced, calculated, or estimated. Anything unsourced, estimated, stale or conflicting is flagged unverified here rather than presented as fact. Ratings: High Medium Low
| Section / dataset | Source | Range · sample | Rating | Caveat / unresolved |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daily Brief — prices & tape | Yahoo Finance daily closes; validated Nov 7, 2026 vs CNBC closing reports, AP and FRED (S&P series) | Close of Fri Nov 6, 2026 | High | Second-source validation — Nov 7, 2026: every tape level confirmed exactly by a second reputable source — S&P 500 7,376.86, Nasdaq 24,579.42, Dow 51,285.73 (CNBC closing reports, echoed by AP), VIX 25.64, −9.01%, 10-year 4.86% (4.859%, CNBC/Yahoo), Thursday's closes 7,353.73 / 24,315.00 (CNBC; FRED SP500 series), weekly changes −2.7% / −3.4% / −0.9% (CNBC). Two flags, kept open: (1) Friday's S&P % prints +0.31% at CNBC vs +0.32% at AP — the level is identical; Capmark keeps AP's +0.32% and discloses the 0.01pt rounding difference rather than averaging it away. (2) SPY's close prints $735.29 (Yahoo) vs $735.36 (Nasdaq.com) — a 7-cent vendor difference; Capmark keeps its stated Yahoo figure. Correction logged: the 2-year yield was corrected 4.46% → 4.51% (it rose 5bp Friday; 4.46% was Thursday's print). Dated snapshot — stale by design after Nov 9; no live/intraday claim. |
| Daily Brief — week narrative & calendar | AP, CNBC and Reuters reporting; BLS Employment Situation & BLS / Federal Reserve published schedules; Cisco Investor Relations; CME FedWatch via dated Barron's / Investopedia / Seeking Alpha reports; PwC post-election note | Nov 2–13, 2026 | Medium | Trust-audit fixes stand: exact election seat counts are still not stated (AK & MS Senate races uncalled at compile time — only AP's call of chamber control, with source and date). Second-source validation — Nov 7, 2026: two removed items were restored only because a primary source now confirms them — Cisco: Q1 FY27 results Thu Nov 12, 2026, confirmed by Cisco Investor Relations' own release (Nov 3); December-hike odds: CME FedWatch read 72.8% pre-jobs and ~77–79% post-jobs on Nov 6 (Barron's / Investopedia / Seeking Alpha, all citing CME; CNBC live coverage ~70% earlier Friday) — quoted in the Brief as a timestamped range, because the odds move intraday. Jobs (+165K vs 59K CNBC consensus / 65K Reuters poll; unemployment 4.1%) corroborated by CNBC, Reuters and Bloomberg reporting of the BLS release. Desk S&P levels stay removed: the only levels found in this pass were an unnamed newsletter's self-described own estimates — not a named desk. CPI consensus 3.9% is CNBC's survey figure, labelled in place. |
| Screener (39 names) | Calculated from Yahoo Finance daily closes; second vendor: Finnhub exchange data + CNBC / closing-table reports (validation pass, Nov 7, 2026) | 1 year of daily bars to Nov 6, 2026 · 39 names | High | All figures are formula outputs (14-day Wilder RSI, 50/200-day averages, 20-day relative volume) — reproducible from the stated inputs. Cross-check record — Nov 7, 2026 (Yahoo vs Finnhub, an independent vendor, checked Nov 7): 8 names match on every field — close, day %, week %, 1-month % and YTD % identical: AMD (449.04, +11.04%, −11.05%, −27.65%, +109.68%; RSI 38.4 and −31.8% from its 52-week high also match), AAPL (342.37, −0.52%), MSFT (530.61, −0.99%), TSLA (358.22, +4.23%), GOOGL (284.78, +0.78%), JPM (334.49, −0.84%), UNH (394.15, −0.40%), XOM (165.87, +0.34%). 8 more match on close and day % in CNBC-linked closing tables and market recaps: NVDA (186.64, +2.78%), META (610.15, +0.84%), PLTR (160.38, +3.48%), AVGO (293.69, +0.74%), AMZN (259.30, −0.35%), SMH (+3.62%), WMT (−1.72%), JNJ (+1.43%). Completion pass — Nov 7, 2026 (Yahoo vs Finnhub, checked Nov 7): the remaining 23 names now also match on every field — close, day %, week %, 1-month % and YTD % identical: CRM (213.65, −3.94%, −6.77%, −6.21%, −19.35%), ORCL (116.10, +0.82%), HD (343.47, −1.85%), NKE (38.59, −2.45%), SBUX (105.41, −0.71%), NFLX (63.41, −3.28%), DIS (116.75, −0.40%), BAC (49.42, −0.68%), GS (865.82, −0.36%), V (422.65, +0.01%), MA (652.70, −0.49%), BRK-B (570.89, −0.25%), COIN (134.76, −1.51%), CVX (212.61, −0.15%), COP (136.27, +0.60%), LLY (1,354.00, −0.79%), PFE (29.39, −1.64%), PG (165.40, −1.02%), COST (1,053.56, −1.13%), KO (95.67, −0.06%), PEP (141.34, −0.96%), CAT (558.63, +0.90%), UNP (290.16, −2.61%) — all 39 of 39 names are now second-source verified on every field; no figure changed, because every figure matched. Flagged, not hidden: one MarketBeat compare page prints JPM at $334.67 / −0.79% and XOM at $165.81, and MarketBeat's own pages print LLY at $1,372.15, MA at $653.45, BAC at $49.54, CAT at $559.32, UNP at $290.50 and DIS at $116.72 — Finnhub and the closing tables agree with Capmark's figures on every one of these names, so Capmark keeps its figures and records the outliers here rather than averaging them in. Snapshot only; not a live screen. Opens on the Oversold screen; screen counts and per-row “why it's here” hits are computed from the same data. |
| Midterm case study | Capital Group / RIMES / S&P, via Greenbush Financial Group; 2018–19 from Capital Group's later edition; 2022–23 calculated from S&P 500 closes (3,828.11 → 4,382.78) | 1950–2023 · all 19 midterms | High | Complete sample for its span and method disclosed (Election Day start; Nov 5 proxy in other years). Price return only — dividends excluded. Second-source validation — Nov 7, 2026: the pattern — higher 12 months after every midterm since 1950, averaging ~15% — is corroborated by four independent reputable sources: J.P. Morgan Asset Management (positive after every midterm since 1950, ~15% average), Nationwide (never lower one year after a midterm since 1950), Fidelity (+14.7%, 1950–2023) and Capital Group's own later editions (15.1% as of Dec 31, 2025; 15.4% in its 2026 update). Capmark keeps its stated 15.0% — the mean of its own 19 bars, 1950–2023 — and discloses the 15.0–15.4% edition spread openly: the differences are window and edition, not error, and they are not averaged together. 6.8% “all other years” remains the original source's own figure, not independently recomputed here. The 2026 midterm's window closes Nov 2027 and is correctly absent. |
| Six combinations — RBC (builder, simulator base, ranked chart) | RBC Wealth Management / Bloomberg, 1953–2025 — corroborated verbatim Nov 7, 2026 by multiple independent republications of the RBC table and RBC's own post-election commentary | 1953–2025 · 6 combinations | Medium | Designated PRIMARY in the November 2026 trust audit — the only six-combination dataset the builder, simulator and headlines draw on. Second-source validation — Nov 7, 2026: all six averages match the RBC/Bloomberg table exactly in every republication checked: Dem pres · Divided +17.0%, Dem pres · Rep Congress +16.3%, Rep pres · Rep Congress +13.3%, Dem pres · Dem Congress +8.0%, Rep pres · Divided +7.3%, Rep pres · Dem Congress +4.9% — and RBC's own Nov 6, 2026 commentary confirms the +4.9% weakest-combination figure and the post-election setup. This row's score rose because the dataset is no longer “via secondary summaries” only — the table itself is now multiply corroborated. Still price-only returns, and some combinations rest on barely a decade of years. It conflicts with the 1926–2023 alternative on unified governments; the two are never blended or averaged together. |
| Six combinations — long dataset | Retirement Researcher data via WT Wealth Management | 1926–2023 · 4-way split only | Medium | Labelled ALTERNATIVE — shown for comparison in Section 03 only, with the method difference stated (period from 1926 incl. the Great Depression; four-way split, so it cannot separate all six combinations). Year counts per bucket vary widely (13–36 years). Reached via secondary summary, not the primary publication. Never blended with the primary. |
| Scenario simulator band | Base: RBC averages · Band: this page's construction | — | Low | The ±6-point band is an illustrative estimate — unverified as a statistic. It is labelled as such everywhere it is used; do not quote it as a confidence interval. Excluded from the Trust Centre average — an illustrative construction is not data, so it no longer drags (or pads) the score; its exclusion is stated here and in the Trust Centre methodology, not done silently. |
| One-stock simulator | Calculated from Yahoo Finance dividend- & split-adjusted closes | 1986–2025 · 12 stocks | Medium | Prices are real and adjusted; per-combination samples are only 2–8 years per stock, so results are era-dominated. “Confidence” is a bootstrap frequency, not a probability — labelled in place. |
| Scenario Lab analogues | S&P returns: Slickcharts / S&P DJI series · Force tags: hand-assigned from NBER dates, Fed history, BLS record | 1973–2024 · 30 of 52 years, hand-selected | Medium | Returns sourced; tags are editorial and the year set is selected, not exhaustive. Most real-world mixes match ≤6 years. Sector led/lagged notes are qualitative summaries, not a per-year return table. Second-source validation — Nov 7, 2026: the return series itself was spot-checked against a second independent price-return table and matched exactly on every year checked — 1974 −29.7%, 2008 −38.5%, 2022 −19.4%, 2023 +24.2%, 2024 +23.3% (Slickcharts price returns vs the Plutux / daily-close compilation and SimianX's two-vendor-checked year-end levels). The force tags remain editorial — that, not the returns, is what holds this score down. |
| Policy focus — “How policy moves markets” | No new data: a regrouping of the Scenario Lab dataset above by policy tag (Fed stance, fiscal/tax, deregulation, trade war, debt-ceiling, shutdown), plus the Sector Playbook's qualitative tilts where no return exists | Same tagged years, 1973–2024 · slices of n=1 to n=12 | Medium / Low slices | Every average is printed with its n. Since the November 2026 trust audit, slices with n=1–2 carry no headline average at all — QT (n=2), tax hikes (n=1), deregulation (n=1) and tariffs (n=2) are shown as individual episodes with their n stated; shutdown/debt-ceiling (n=3) keeps its warning. Regulation tightening and isolated government spending have no tagged sample — shown as “no clean historical analogue” with no figure, by design. Averages for multi-force years cannot isolate the named policy's own effect; the cards say so per episode. Second-source validation — Nov 7, 2026: this section inherits the Scenario Lab return validation above (episode years 1974, 2008, 2022, 2023, 2024 confirmed against a second price-return source) — its score rose with the Lab's, and no further. The policy tags themselves are still hand-assigned. |
| Chamber by chamber (Dow) | Mike Patton / Integrity Wealth Mgmt via Forbes; Forecast-Chart compilation; AEA 2025 paper as counterweight | 1946–2020 · 75 years | Medium | Single-analyst compilation, not peer-reviewed; rows overlap (chambers usually align). A 2025 AEA paper finds no reliable single-chamber premium — the conflict is shown in the section. |
| President by president | TD Economics / Bloomberg via Cabot and secondary term tables | Since 1946 · 6 modern terms ranked | Medium | Two compilations differ by a few points on identical terms (e.g. Obama +182% vs +189%) — method conventions, disclosed in place. Tiny sample; starting-point luck dominates. |
| 13-era explorer | Compiled from the sources in Section 10 | 1945–present · 13 eras | Medium | Era market totals are approximate. Trump II era is in progress — provisional, unverified as a completed record, and excluded from completed-term rankings. |
| Economy scorecard | Blinder & Watson, American Economic Review (2016); EPI update; NBER | 1949–2023 | High | Strongest sourcing in the app. Interpretive caveat stands: the authors attribute ~half the partisan gap to luck (oil shocks, productivity, world conditions). |
| Sector playbook & leaderboard | Franklin Templeton; Ameriprise/Bloomberg; Fundstrat; sector-ETF study | Windows from 1930 (medians) to 1998–2022 (ETF era, 6 cycles) | Medium | Window-dependent winner (financials lead Q4, finish last over 12 months). Per-combination sector returns are not measured anywhere — presented as policy tilts only. Communication Services exists as a sector only since 2018. |
| Crypto — BTC & ETH | Exchange daily-close compilations (cryptocurrencyhistory), cross-checked vs Coin Metrics / CoinMarketCap series; drawdowns: Plutus; GrowYourEthereum (Coinbase) | BTC 2011– · ETH 2015– · 4 presidencies, 3 midterms | Medium | Early-year figures differ a few points between series — disclosed. Term totals are calculated from year-end prices. No per-chamber or post-midterm average is claimed: the sample cannot support one. Second-source validation — Nov 7, 2026: the Nov 6, 2026 prints in the Brief were confirmed against independent crypto close reports: BTC ≈ $75,747 (BusinessToday's Nov 6 close report — exact match) and ETH $2,235 (exact across Basis Desk / Coinbase-Kraken snapshots and CoinGecko-based boards). Disclosed honestly: crypto has no single official close — other reputable snapshots the same evening print BTC between $75,736 (UTC close) and $75,966 (5 PM ET), a ~0.3% spread by timestamp and venue. Capmark's figure sits inside that range; ETH agrees everywhere checked. |
| All Drivers map (31 drivers) | Episodes cited per card (Fed, BEA, BLS, IMF COFER, SEC, Census series) | Episodes 1970s–2024 | Medium | Episodes are real and sourced; the strong/mixed/weak/narrative grades are editorial judgement against the criteria at the top of this ledger. “Weak” and “mostly narrative” drivers are carried as unverified patterns by design. |
| Ask It Anything | Assembled only from the datasets above | — | Medium | Inherits each dataset's rating; every answer prints its source. Questions outside the page's data are declined rather than answered from general knowledge. |
| Watchlist — glance view (39 names) | Same calculated dataset as the Screener — Yahoo Finance daily closes; day change in $ derived exactly from close and Friday % change; all 39 of 39 names second-source checked Nov 7, 2026 (see Screener row) | Close of Fri Nov 6, 2026 · 39 names | HighTrust score · 96 / 100 | Sparklines join five sourced anchor closes (Dec 31, 2025 · 1 month ago · 1 week ago · previous close · Friday's close), each derived from the name's sourced % changes — the dots are data, the joins are not a daily price path, and the view says so in place. Snapshot, not live. Second-source validation — completed Nov 7, 2026: inherits the Screener cross-check: all 39 names' closes, day, week, 1-month and YTD changes are confirmed by Finnhub (16 in the first pass, the remaining 23 in the completion pass — per-name record in the Screener row). No name in this view is single-source. |
| Stock detail view — key stats & chart | Screener dataset fields only; previous close and 52-week high derived by formula from sourced % changes and labelled Derived | As of Fri Nov 6, 2026 · 39 names | MediumTrust score · 86 / 100 | Shown stats are sourced or exactly derived (rounding in the source % changes bounds derived prices to within ~0.1%). Second-source validation — completed Nov 7, 2026: Finnhub's previous closes now reproduce Capmark's derived previous closes for all 39 names (the first pass covered 8 — e.g. AMD $404.40, AAPL $344.17, MSFT $535.93, TSLA $343.69; the completion pass added the rest — e.g. CRM $222.41, COST $1,065.59, UNP $297.95, LLY $1,364.78), confirming the derivation method against a second vendor for the whole universe. Open, day range, share volume, average volume, market cap, P/E, dividend yield and EPS are not in this dataset — shown as Unavailable, never estimated — that incompleteness, not sourcing, is what holds this score at 86. Chart ranges beyond the sourced anchors (1D intraday, 3M, 6M, 1Y, 5Y, Max) show an explicit unavailable note instead of a chart. |
| Top News | Associated Press, CNBC, Reuters and Bloomberg reporting; BLS Employment Situation and BLS / Federal Reserve published schedules; CME FedWatch via dated reports; compiled in the Nov 7, 2026 Daily Brief | Nov 3–10, 2026 · 7 items | MediumTrust score · 80 / 100 | Every item names its source and date — now including CNBC on the market items and a CME FedWatch item added in the Nov 7 validation pass with its readings timestamped (72.8% pre-jobs, ~77–79% post-jobs, Nov 6). Exact election seat counts are not stated (AK & MS Senate races uncalled at compile time); only AP's call of chamber control is reported. No headline is published without a named source; tickers with no verified item state that in their detail view. Not a live news feed. |
What the November 2026 trust audit fixed: 1 · Conflict: the two six-combination datasets still rank unified governments oppositely — now RBC 1953–2025 is the designated primary (the only one the tools draw on) and 1926–2023 is a labelled alternative; they are never averaged together. The two presidential compilations still differ by up to ~7 points on a term total, and the AEA paper still disputes the chamber figures — both conflicts shown, not hidden. 2 · Removed, not left looking verified: one desk's S&P levels were removed and stay removed after the Nov 7 re-check; the December-hike odds and Cisco's earnings date were removed in this audit and restored on Nov 7, 2026 only after primary sources confirmed them (CME FedWatch readings on the record; Cisco Investor Relations' own release) — see the validation paragraph below; exact 2026 seat counts are no longer stated (two Senate races uncalled at compile time — only AP's chamber-control call is reported). 3 · Illustrative, excluded: the simulator's ±6-point band is labelled illustrative everywhere and excluded from the trust average. 4 · Thin samples: policy slices with n=1–2 (QT, tax hikes, tariffs, deregulation) no longer carry headline averages — episodes only, n stated. 5 · Still provisional: the Trump II era (in progress, excluded from completed-term rankings). 6 · Stale by design: the Daily Brief and Screener are frozen at the Nov 6, 2026 close — a live edition must be rebuilt each morning. Nothing in this ledger was filled in from memory: where a figure could not be tied to a named source, it is flagged above instead of asserted.
What the Nov 7, 2026 second-source validation pass did: 1 · Confirmed exactly: all index closes (CNBC/AP/FRED), all six RBC averages (multiple republications of the RBC/Bloomberg table), the Scenario Lab price-return series on every spot-checked year (second independent table), BTC/ETH Nov 6 prints — and, after the completion pass below, 39 of 39 Screener names (Finnhub, every field). 2 · Restored on primary-source confirmation only: Cisco's Nov 12 earnings date (Cisco IR) and the December-hike odds (CME FedWatch, quoted as a timestamped range). 3 · Corrected: the 2-year yield, 4.46% → 4.51%. 4 · Flagged, not averaged away: CNBC +0.31% vs AP +0.32% for Friday's S&P; SPY $735.29 vs $735.36 across vendors; one MarketBeat JPM outlier; crypto's $75,736–$75,966 timestamp range. 5 · Still single-source, said plainly: the USO oil print, and every dataset whose score did not move. No Screener or Watchlist name remains single-source. 6 · Still removed: desk S&P levels — no named desk source exists. 7 · Completion pass (Nov 7, 2026): the remaining 23 names were checked against Finnhub and matched on every field — all 39 of 39 are now verified, no price changed, and the Trust Centre now splits the headline into Core Data Trust and Overall, both computed from this ledger. The scores rose because the data earned it; the formula inside each average did not change.
Method caution, stated plainly: these are historical averages over different windows, indexes and dividend treatments. They describe what happened; they do not establish that a party caused it, and they are not a forecast. The Trump second term is in progress and excluded from completed-term rankings.
The Capmark free preview gave you the headline pattern. Pro opens every tool that explains it — the simulators, the eras, the sectors, the scorecard, and Ask It Anything. Pricing: $7/mo · $59/yr · $129 lifetime (first 100 only, then retired), with a 7-day free trial on monthly & annual.
Preview build: payment by Stripe — checkout goes live in the release version; this preview unlock opens the full app for your session so you can judge it, and charges nothing. No card is taken here, and no Pro content is actually paywalled in this build — Validation Mode keeps everything open for review. Pricing: $7/mo · $59/yr · $129 lifetime (first 100 only, then retired). New checkout links for this pricing are coming — this preview charges nothing. Historical data for education only — not financial advice, and not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any investment.