In case you went to bed early and haven't glanced at the sports page, the New York Yankees won their 27th title last night after beating the Philadelphia Phillies in the 6th game of the World Series. That's great news for fans of the Bronx Bombers, but should the market also cheer? According to some analysis from Bloomberg, history shows that stocks might have been better off if the Yanks lost.
In yesterday's chart of the day, Bloomberg revealed how the S&P 500 fares in November and December following a Yankees World Series win. Here it is:
Bloomberg did some analysis and found:
Since the S&P 500 began trading in 1928, it has averaged 3 percent returns for those two months following the Yankees' 10 World Series defeats; 2.16 percent returns in the 24 years they won the title; and 0.9 percent returns when the Yankees didn't make the World Series at all. The market does best when New York reaches the World Series -- and loses.
So the market should always celebrate when the Yankees make the World Series, but ultimately root against them once they get there. When they lose, the return has been 0.84% higher.
Of course, such historical analyses based on events that should have little correlation to the market aren't particularly dependable. After all, looking at the chart, this year could be like 1928. But it could also be more like 1941.
Obviously, there is some overlap between Yankees fans and Wall Street. But even if this historical paradigm is accurate, I doubt many people in that group will be disappointed with last night's result. They'll likely welcome 0.84% lower return with open arms, given the reward: a 9-year drought in World Series wins is like a century in Yankee fan years.
For any Boston Red Sox fan investors, however, this analysis makes last night's win sting even worse.
Stupid. Come on. Really? No. The market has nothing to do with baseball. This writer should be fired. So absurd its not even funny. So its not dependable huh? Then why put it out there? The 1 minute it took to read your article I will never get back. You, Daniel Indiviglio, owe me one minute of life.
Most retarded article ever written by far. There is absolutley NOTHING of value written here. Useless drivel, hey I've got one for you: When it rains on the second tuesday of March in years when at least 10 politicians have sneezed in an interview, the stock market has averaged +0.12% in 64 out of the past 100 years except when OJ Simpson has been in the news less that 13 times. Now go forth and invest
It's got cute, silly value. But is that what The Atlantic is about? I don't imagine any of your readers would actually believe in the quaint, specious numerology that this article is about.
I hope no one will think that the fact that the first thing the market did this morning, after the Yanks won last night, is go up almost two-hundred points (so far) means that your speculation is disproven, either.
None of that has any more bearing on the market the number of times your grandmother brushed her teeth in May.
The writer really could have used his time writing something of value.