# Stocks to buy for an NDP-like Government



## webber22 (Mar 6, 2011)

The only ones I can think of are Molson and Labatts. Everyone will be at home on double UIC or double CPP , drinking double white ale


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Agreed. Also a regular high interest savings account won't be too bad either.
With the doubling of everything, the deficit will also double, inflation will also double and interest rates will also double.


----------



## Axcell (Mar 25, 2011)

SLV, GLD.
Why? NDP's are notorious for creating deficits. I expect lots of inflation.. no better way to hedge inflation than with one of the two aforementioned metals (or both!)


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

webber22 said:


> The only ones I can think of are Molson and Labatts. Everyone will be at home on double UIC or double CPP , drinking double white ale


This is a heck of a quote.. at least it'll give me a laugh to ease the effects if some election shenanigans occur.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)




----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

You could short mining stocks. In BC every time the NDP got in they would drive out all the mining companies.

The US dollar would do better then the Canadian dollar as Canada tries to see how much debt the country can get into before the IMF comes in.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 27, 2010)

*Liquidation World*

LQW - T 

They sell merchandise from failed businesses.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

This is really funny, I also like LQW. I would think Ritchie Bros Auctioneers or RBA -T would also be a good buy.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I should also mention business like Money Mart and Cash Stores would do great under an NDP government.


----------



## Taxsaver (Jun 7, 2009)

It's funny now, but it won't if they get elected.


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

*LIQ*: Liquor Stores will do great with bigger EI cheques.
*EXE.UN*: Extendicare REIT will have more reliable income with higher CPP.
*Just For Men*: Big sales for this product as everyone grows a Jack Layton mustache.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

I just walked through all the scenarios of a NDP government.You buy houses if NDP gets in power because they will extend the low interest rate. + their caregiver's hose credit etc.

Resources are based on global demand and not just Canada, so SLV and GLD is actually not a good idea. Oil Sands will go kaput once NDP get rid of the subsidy and most of the corporations will be taxed to death.

What you need to do, is start your own corporation as a small business, since the tax for that is reduced to 9%.


----------



## bmckay (Mar 10, 2011)

What about Harper running the deficit up in 2009?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Also make sure to spend or exchange all your CAD as it's already dropped in value just on the idea of an NDP minority

This isn't even funny really


----------



## peterboro31 (May 11, 2010)

Remember It's minority government; so more of the same as in the past.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 8, 2010)

Causalien said:


> You buy houses if NDP gets in power because they will extend the low interest rate.


The government has no say in interest rate policy. Interest rates are set by the Bank of Canada, which is operated at arm's-length from the government.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Ethan said:


> The government has no say in interest rate policy. Interest rates are set by the Bank of Canada, which is operated at arm's-length from the government.


You mean that Goldman Sachs guy? I think he listens really closely to Ottawa, Wall Street ...


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Hilarious. 

I'd say start by not buying any Canadian companies.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Hasn't he also been making noises about subsidies to the moribund industries like forestry?
The top companies in industries likely to get subsidies could get a temporary boost.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

Ethan said:


> The government has no say in interest rate policy. Interest rates are set by the Bank of Canada, which is operated at arm's-length from the government.


I disagree with this because when the population is out in the street with pitchforks, law and politics will bend. But before that happens, G$ Will bend it.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

US small arms and munitions manufacturers, as Americans gear up to fight off the socialist hordes from the north.

Manufacturers of ear plugs, as Canadians will need them for defense against US commentators. (Oops - we already need them for Harper, who has started the scare tactics this week.)


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

We would need less prisons as the NDP goes soft on crime. So stay away from companies that build prisons.

You will also have to make sure you don't speed because they will be coming after you to collect fines. You would be better off stealing cars, breaking into cars, houses or businesses then you would be if you didn't put your seatbelt on.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The oil companies could leave, but the oil stays here.


----------



## fersure (Apr 19, 2009)

dogcom said:


> You could short mining stocks. In BC every time the NDP got in they would drive out all the mining companies.
> 
> The US dollar would do better then the Canadian dollar as Canada tries to see how much debt the country can get into before the IMF comes in.


And the price of gold, coal, and copper had absolutely nothing to do with it?


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Fersure if a government puts in enough taxes and regulations the price of the commodity will not matter as much.


----------



## 50invester (Feb 10, 2010)

*Spending*

After reading these posts I was wondering how many of you are part of Harper's glee club? Who was it that just drove up the deficit to $50B? Who is it that wants to spend billions on prisons .... so much they don't even want to tell anybody? Who is it that wants to sole source a contract for billions to pay for fighter jets? Did you know that the City of Toronto avoids this like the plague. So why is Rob Ford supporting the PC's ... because he is a mental midget. Why is it so easy to condem someone who has not even been given a chance. And why are we subsidizing big oil? What happened to a free market where you sink or swim. Isn't that what makes an efficient company? Maybe some of you should look beyond your monthly investment statement just once, as there's more to life than money ... or haven't you heard. And I am not even voting NDP!


----------



## fersure (Apr 19, 2009)

dogcom said:


> Fersure if a government puts in enough taxes and regulations the price of the commodity will not matter as much.


Any proof, or do you just spout Conservative/BC Liberal BS?

1) I'll grant you that the Harcourt era probably wasn't the best time for the mining industry, what with the CORE process and massive number of new parks being created. Conversely, what alternative was available? Do you not remember that there were international boycotts of BC wood and other exports going on? Harcourt's actions bought time and allowed Clark/Miller to reach out to the mining industry. Indeed, it was Clark who first created a devoted Energy and Mines ministry, one that Campbell and C Clark seemed fit to emulate.
2) Miller and Clark basically re-wrote the regulatory regime for mining that had been in place since the early 1900s. They streamlined the entire process, planted the seeds for the whole FrontCounter BC initiative that the BC Liberals carried on. The success of this program is particularly evident in the oil and gas industry.
3) It was Clark and Miller who put into law that governments were required to pay compensation in cases where a government expropriates mineral tenure rights when a new park is created. Before, your Socred buddies would just take the land without compensation.
4) A ban on uranium mining in populated areas? Sounds like a pretty good idea...one that was carried on by Kevin Krueger.
5) Writing off capital and exploration expenses? Wait, that was introduced by the NDP too.

The BC NDP in the 1990s were far from perfect. But Clark/Dosanjh left Campbell with three consecutive balanced budgets (the third one, was proven by the Auditor General - but destroyed by Campbell's reckless tax cuts), and a streamlined natural resources regulatory process. 

By the way, ask any miner what they think of the new Ministry of Natural Resource Operations, and they'll tell you that Campbell's last folly has created more uncertainty than anything ever done by the NDP!


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

50invester said:


> After reading these posts I was wondering how many of you are part of Harper's glee club? Who was it that just drove up the deficit to $50B? Who is it that wants to spend billions on prisons .... so much they don't even want to tell anybody? Who is it that wants to sole source a contract for billions to pay for fighter jets? Did you know that the City of Toronto avoids this like the plague. So why is Rob Ford supporting the PC's ... because he is a mental midget. Why is it so easy to condem someone who has not even been given a chance. And why are we subsidizing big oil? What happened to a free market where you sink or swim. Isn't that what makes an efficient company? Maybe some of you should look beyond your monthly investment statement just once, as there's more to life than money ... or haven't you heard. And I am not even voting NDP!


I wanted Harper out too, but it eventually became a financial decision for me. The other two candidates promises something that is fiscally impossible. Doubling the pension. Looking at the age distribution it probably requires a tripling of the CPP contribution.

I miss Jean Chrétien


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

I wish CPP and EI were eliminated altogether. Totally inefficient programs. Unfortunately most people live paycheque to paycheque and have to have their retirement planned for them.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Fersure I hear you and I don't give a s--t about any party. I have lived with the NDP and as long as there is slack they will extract all blood available for there cause. The other parties will do that as well.

In the end you have to ask yourself how much free money is out there. The NDP assumes that everyone will pay the very high price of their policies so you be the judge. 










i


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

50invester said:


> After reading these posts I was wondering how many of you are part of Harper's glee club? Who was it that just drove up the deficit to $50B? Who is it that wants to spend billions on prisons .... so much they don't even want to tell anybody? Who is it that wants to sole source a contract for billions to pay for fighter jets? Did you know that the City of Toronto avoids this like the plague. So why is Rob Ford supporting the PC's ... because he is a mental midget. Why is it so easy to condem someone who has not even been given a chance. And why are we subsidizing big oil? What happened to a free market where you sink or swim. Isn't that what makes an efficient company? Maybe some of you should look beyond your monthly investment statement just once, as there's more to life than money ... or haven't you heard. And I am not even voting NDP!


Totally agree w you on subsidizing big oil.  They should be able to take care of their own business now. Rumor has it the world needs our dirty oil.

I don't think the TSE will like the potential NDP increase in coprorate taxes though. Nor will the commodity influenced CDN dollar like the potential hit to the oil industry here. And how that would leave the door open to increasing interest rates if our dollar went down a little.....


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Causalien said:


> I wanted Harper out too, but it eventually became a financial decision for me. The other two candidates promises something that is fiscally impossible. Doubling the pension. Looking at the age distribution it probably requires a tripling of the CPP contribution.
> 
> I miss Jean Chrétien


Doubling benefits (replacement ratio) from 25% to 50% would require less than a 60% increase in contribution rates. Employer+employee contribution rates are 9.9% right now, and a doubling would require an additional 5.8% or so (what I read from a pension expert). We're currently making up for the fact that CPP was pay-as-you-go for the first few decades but now is pre-funding the liability since the reforms in the 1990s.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Doubling benefits (replacement ratio) from 25% to 50% would require less than a 60% increase in contribution rates. Employer+employee contribution rates are 9.9% right now, and a doubling would require an additional 5.8% or so (what I read from a pension expert). We're currently making up for the fact that CPP was pay-as-you-go for the first few decades but now is pre-funding the liability since the reforms in the 1990s.


Are you taking their words on their face value? Or did they actually present the math? If so, where can I find it? And was this calculation done before or after the change in accounting rule this year for underfunded liabilities?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It was for a gradual phase in over 40 years (obviously not an instant doubling of benefits). I think I read it in a report from CD Howe, written by an academic--ie, it wasn't a political piece, and the number generally makes sense to me. There was no math presented, but even if there were, I'm not an actuary (though I did take some Actuarial science courses in uni).

Could you elaborate on this change in accounting rules? The CPP has an actuarial analysis done every three years to determine whether the current contribution rate and investment return will be sufficient to maintain benefits for a 75 year period.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

It's here: http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/oca/studies/actetd8_e.pdf

Page 21 with tables on page 22. The change from closed to open group.

If you want my summary, it's a change in how they calculate unfunded liability. They went from using sound accounting based on current data to using the best case scenario accounting. Wiping ~$300 billion of unfunded liability off.

The reason why I think this is bogus is because of the historic under-performance of the pension fund's equity investments. If this were done to a corporation, I'd short their behind. BUT this is done to a country's pension fund so nothing I can do.

Now how about a link to your article? I'd like to find out who funded the research and get to some hard math. Voting is tomorrow and I need to know as much fact as I can.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm not convinced that the open group assumption is invalid. Yes, their historical return has trailed the 4.2% real return their actuarial assumption have relied up, but that has been over a relatively challenging time in equity markets. 4.2% real return is not unreasonable for a 60/40 equity/fixed income portfolio, especially one that can participate in long term private equity investments.

The paper was from IRPP. I was confusing it with Ambachtsheer's paper from CD Howe.

http://www.irpp.org/pubs/IRPPstudy/IRPP_Study_no17.pdf

It was written by Dr Michael Wolfson, formerly of StatCan.


----------

