According to Bloomberg, which interviewed Fisher, stocks have surged since July amid expectations that Republicans would make sweeping gains. So it has proved: the GOP has won control of the House of Representatives and gained seats – but not control – of the Senate.

Fisher argues that “gridlock” between a Congress and White house is often positive for equities if it means a lack of legislation and potentially expensive government initiatives, such as the recently passed health care reforms. The past two years have also witnessed massive bailouts of banks and GM and sweeping financial curbs on banks. All of these measures have proven controversial, helping to fuel the Tea Party anti-tax and anti-government protests in recent months.

“Markets don’t like big sweeping actions,” said Fisher, who oversees more than $38 billion at his business. “Right now, every politician is chirping and burping and carrying on. It’s been in the interest of the Republicans running for office to talk down the economy. That goes away immediately after the election. Come June, you’ll see how quiet the political landscape will be -- very little legislation and a lot of baby kissing,” he told the news service.

Fisher’s view is based on a stock market history. Stocks make average gains of 11 per cent in the third year of US presidencies and haven’t fallen since 1939 when the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 2.9 per cent, according to data since 1833 compiled by the Stock Trader’s Almanac. The fourth year, when elections are held in November, is second-best, with an average advance of 5.8 per cent.

“Next year is the sweet spot,” Fisher said. “Most political risk aversion occurs in the first year when the president has the most relative power to the opposition party he will ever have. He tries to get through whatever his toughest bills would be, and that freaks people out.”