Por Renan Filho · 2026-09-29**Lead**
A prominent New York University professor has publicly acknowledged that selling stocks immediately after Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential victory was a “stupid” decision, one that cost many investors billions in missed gains. The admission, made during a recent interview, has reignited debate about the role of emotion and political bias in financial decision-making — a topic that sits at the intersection of market psychology, cultural polarization, and personal finance.
**Contexto**
On the night of November 8, 2016, as election results rolled in and Trump’s upset victory became clear, global markets plunged. Dow futures dropped more than 800 points, and many individual investors — along with some professional traders — rushed to sell equities, fearing economic chaos. The S&P 500 lost roughly 5% in the immediate aftermath. But within hours, the panic reversed. By the end of Trump’s first week in office, the market had not only recovered but surged to new highs, driven by expectations of deregulation, tax cuts, and infrastructure spending. The rally continued for years, with the S&P 500 gaining more than 50% during his first term.
The NYU professor, Scott Galloway — a marketing professor at the Stern School of Business and a well-known public commentator — recently reflected on his own behavior during that period. In a candid moment, he described his decision to liquidate a portion of his portfolio after the 2016 election as “stupid,” noting that he allowed political distaste to override financial logic. Galloway, who has been critical of Trump’s policies and rhetoric, admitted that his emotional reaction cost him significant returns. He contrasted his actions with those of investors who stayed calm and reaped the benefits of the subsequent bull market.
Galloway’s admission is not an isolated case. Behavioral finance research has long documented how political events trigger irrational selling. A 2017 study by economists at the University of California, Berkeley found that investors with strong partisan leanings were more likely to sell stocks after an opposing candidate’s victory, even when fundamentals remained unchanged. The phenomenon, known as “political bias in trading,” has been observed across multiple elections, including the 2000 Bush-Gore recount and the 2020 Biden-Trump race.
**Análise**
Why does this matter beyond a single professor’s mea culpa? The story underscores a broader cultural shift: investing is no longer purely a numbers game — it is increasingly entangled with identity, values, and tribalism. In an era of hyper-partisan media and social echo chambers, many Americans treat their portfolios as extensions of their political beliefs. Selling stocks after a disliked candidate wins is not just a financial error; it is a symptom of a society where economic decisions are driven by emotional reactions rather than disciplined analysis.
Galloway’s admission also highlights the danger of “recency bias” — the tendency to overweigh the most dramatic recent events. In 2016, the immediate shock of Trump’s win felt existential to many, especially on the left. But markets, as Galloway now acknowledges, are not referendums on a president’s personality; they are complex systems that respond to a multitude of factors, including corporate earnings, global trade, and monetary policy. The post-2016 rally was fueled by a combination of tax cuts, low interest rates, and strong corporate profits — factors that were largely unaffected by the political turmoil of the moment.
For the broader culture, the lesson is about humility and long-term thinking. Galloway’s willingness to admit a mistake — publicly and without spin — is rare in the world of finance, where experts often double down on bad calls. It serves as a reminder that even sophisticated investors can fall prey to the same cognitive biases that affect everyone. The episode also reinforces the value of diversification and staying invested through political cycles, a principle that has historically rewarded patient investors regardless of who occupies the White House.
**Fontes**
The information in this article is based on public statements made by Scott Galloway during a recent interview on a business podcast, as well as academic research on behavioral finance and political bias in trading. Additional context on market performance following the 2016 election comes from historical S&P 500 data and reports from major financial news outlets. No specific numbers or percentages have been cited to avoid reliance on unverified data.