Politicizing the Olympic Decision

Those of us who live in the Chicago area have paid special attention to the Olympic decision. There are a number of theories about what happened. There was an especially strong analysis from Dick Ebersol, NBC sports & Olympic Chairman.

Watch the video to confirm, but his key point is that the IOC has a European focus and is unhappy with the financial relationships with the USOC. There are issues about how much of revenues come off the top, and what other countries get. Ebersol suggests that without some changes in these fundamentals, also affecting the last bid from New York, it will be many years before we see an Olympics in the US.

His message is that this is an uphill battle -- 18 votes for the US this time, and 19 for NY the last time. It is a problem -- and one not related to partisan politics.

The Kudlow Spin

Regular readers know that we view the Kudlow show as a useful source of debate about the economy and the market. They also know that we are disturbed by the increased injection of partisan politics, often extending to his assignments as a CNBC anchor, perhaps somewhat better since he is no longer a rumored candidate for office.

In Friday night's program Kudlow portrayed the President's decision to go to Copenhagen as a big mistake, undermining US credibility.

What if the President had not made the trip? Kudlow might well have blamed the outcome on his failure to participate. It has become routine for national leaders to make a pitch, but Obama had to trade this off with the health program debate. Those present at the US presentation uniformly report that the involvement of the President and the First Lady were the best parts. No one knows what would have happened if Obama had not made the trip, but the critics would have been loud.

Investment Implications?

We understand that Kudlow is competing for ratings, and working in a very conservative time-slot demographic where many are eager to criticize the President.

Briefly put, there are no investment implications from this event. This piling on by Kudlow and his selected guests is more about partisan politics than the investment purpose of his popular program.

Our own viewpoint is that we should be focused on investments, agnostic about politics, and trying to find the best opportunities. Our objective is to make great returns regardless of which party is in power. We seek information that helps in this quest. Overtly partisan messages do not fit.

Comments

[sieraromero:]

The majority of CNBC commentary has become increasingly partisan and not only from that quack [Kudlow]. It is becoming so partisan that it may in and of itself help to become a self fullfilling prophesy that our once great country experience another great downturn in the markets.

Oct 04 08:19 AM

[Angel Martin:]

the analysis of the IOC decision is a good example of underlying trends and fundamentals being ignored in favour of a politicized discussion of the personalities and policies (that often don't have much short term effect).

At the same time, Obama will soon have an extremely strong economy and market to take credit for, so we conservatives have to take our shots when we can.

Oct 04 02:11 PM

[Hmm?!:]

Your comment "No one knows what would have happened if Obama had not made the trip, but the critics would have been loud." ......is way off the mark!

President Obama announced well in advance that the First Lady would be making the trip and there was no public criticism. Never has a US president made such a trip in the past. Therefore the President may have taken a risk in going.

"we should be focused on investments, agnostic about politics ......... Overtly partisan messages do not fit." You are right, so hopefully you do not do it again.

Oct 04 11:03 PM

[Jeff Miller:]

Mr. Hmmm.

I am always interested in well-researched comments. I suggest that you check out some additional information:

www.universalsports.co...

IOC president Jacques Rogge said disputes with the U.S. Olympic Committee will have "no negative effects whatsoever" on Chicago's chances of landing the 2016 Summer Games.

and later...

"I think I can make a bet today and say that it's probably going to be a couple of votes, two, three, four," Rogge said, echoing his comments in an Associated Press interview last week. "Something like four, five votes is only the situation of a change of mind of two or three persons. You see how close it is. You can convince two people more and you might win."

If you google "Obama not going to Copenhagen" you will see many stories. Things have changed since the last US bid, with Blair and Putin both making personal appeals.

I have provided a strong message in many articles that investors should not play politics with their investments. This article makes the point very clearly.

Those who think that the Olympic loss has some grand implications for investments are looking in the wrong direction.


On Oct 04 11:03 PM Hmm?! wrote:

> Your comment "No one knows what would have happened if Obama had
> not made the trip, but the critics would have been loud." ......is
> way off the mark!
>
> President Obama announced well in advance that the First Lady would
> be making the trip and there was no public criticism. Never has a
> US president made such a trip in the past. Therefore the President
> may have taken a risk in going.
>
> "we should be focused on investments, agnostic about politics .........
> Overtly partisan messages do not fit." You are right, so hopefully
> you do not do it again.

Oct 04 11:20 PM

[Hmm?!:]

Mr. Miller,

You make somewhat of a point, ......... however neither Blair or Putin, is currently the leader of his nation.

In the case of Putin, some would say not officially the leader. Saying "the critics would have been loud" paints with a pretty broad political brush, ...... well beyond Mr. Kudlow.

It really comes down to...what else would President Obama have likely done with his time? Given Obama's history, I see nothing that would get the investment community or his critics jumping for joy.


On Oct 04 11:20 PM Jeff Miller wrote:

> Mr. Hmmm.
>
> I am always interested in well-researched comments. I suggest that
> you check out some additional information:
>
> www.universalsports.co...;ATCLID=204796264
>
>
> IOC president Jacques Rogge said disputes with the U.S. Olympic Committee
> will have "no negative effects whatsoever" on Chicago's chances of
> landing the 2016 Summer Games.
>
> and later...
>
> "I think I can make a bet today and say that it's probably going
> to be a couple of votes, two, three, four," Rogge said, echoing his
> comments in an Associated Press interview last week. "Something like
> four, five votes is only the situation of a change of mind of two
> or three persons. You see how close it is. You can convince two people
> more and you might win."
>
> If you google "Obama not going to Copenhagen" you will see many stories.
> Things have changed since the last US bid, with Blair and Putin both
> making personal appeals.
>
> I have provided a strong message in many articles that investors
> should not play politics with their investments. This article makes
> the point very clearly.
>
> Those who think that the Olympic loss has some grand implications
> for investments are looking in the wrong direction.

Oct 05 12:33 AM

[Jeff Miller:]

I was highlighting their actions at the time they held office and their countries pursued Olympic bids, something that some have come to expect. See this, for example, from USA Today content.usatoday.com/c...:

"British Prime Minister Tony Blair played a key role in landing the 2012 Olympics for London. So did Russian President Vladimir Putin when the IOC awarded the 2014 winter games to Sochi."


On Oct 05 12:33 AM Hmm?! wrote:

> Mr. Miller,
>
> You make somewhat of a point, ......... however neither Blair or
> Putin, is currently the leader of his nation.
>
> In the case of Putin, some would say not officially the leader. Saying
> "the critics would have been loud" paints with a pretty broad political
> brush, ...... well beyond Mr. Kudlow.
>
> It really comes down to...what else would President Obama have likely
> done with his time? Given Obama's history, I see nothing that would
> get the investment community or his critics jumping for joy.

Oct 05 01:37 PM