Monday January 24, 2000 (5:00 pm ET)
Numerous theories abound as to why certain events occur. If Punxitanny Phil see's his shadow we can expect 6 more weeks of winter. If the National League wins the World Series, a Democrat will be elected President. And now a new theory linking sports and economics has been proposed: The Super Bowl and the Stock Market.
But is this theory credible? Decide for yourself. (Don't be swayed by the author's biases.) What evidence supports this theory? Why is it believable or not?
This story was written before the St. Louis Rams won the Superbowl. If you were advising your parents as to how to save money for your tuitionnfor next year, would you advise them to invest it in sticks or put it in the bank? Which option would you predict would produce the money tuition money for you for next year's expenses?
If you'd like the raw data in order to make your own predictions, it will be available on sobek at "/projects/datamgr/MCIVER/NFL6700.sav".
NEW YORK, Jan. 12 (Standard & Poor's) - It was a cold and windy Sunday night in January 1991. My heart pounded and my stomach churned as Scott Norwood stepped onto the field to attempt what would be a game-winning field goal with only seconds remaining in a classic Super Bowl battle between my beloved New York Giants and the cursed Buffalo Bills. Just when I thought the gnawing in my gut couldn't get any worse, Giants coach Bill Parcells decided to take a time-out, forcing Norwood (and me) to fret some more about the kick's monumental ramifications. As Parcells's hands came together in a "T" formation, signaling the delay that would increase my angst threefold, I asked the bartender for a shot of Maalox with a Pepto-Bismol chaser.
"Gosh, you must be a real die-hard Giants fan," he said. I am, but little did he know how much more was riding on the kick than just the world championship of football.
The players lined up, and the ref placed the ball and blew his whistle. The snap... the kick... WIDE RIGHT!!! The Giants win!!! The S&P 500 wins!!!
The S&P 500?
A Touchdown 27 Out of 33 Years
According to one of the most accurate "indicators" of upcoming market performance, the Giants victory was a very bullish sign of trading to come. The Super Bowl Stock Market Theory says that the S&P 500 will gain for the year when the Bowl winner is an original National Football League team, including those in the American Football Conference such as Pittsburgh and Cleveland; whenever the AFC emerges victorious, the S&P will decline. Laugh if you will, but the Theory has an astounding 81.8% accuracy rate. So unless you're a Titans' fan or shorting the market, root with all your might for St. Louis to capture this year's crown.
Frank "Rip" Slusser, market reporter for S&P MarketScope, says the Theory was invented by former New York Times sportswriter Leonard Koppett 21 years ago. Slusser keeps an up-to-date list of Theory-related facts, such as these:
As with any investment or indicator, please remember that past performance is no guarantee of future results. Make sure you do your own...
(All right, all right, I'll admit it -- there's as much of a link between the winner of the Super Bowl and how the S&P 500 performs as there is between some groundhog seeing his shadow and the arrival of spring. Case in point -- despite Denver's victories over the past two seasons, the "500" posted solid gains in both 1998 and 1999. And I was a heckuva lot more excited that the Giants won than I was for any kind of market-related nonsense. If anyone really thinks the S&P 500 wouldn't have posted such solid gains over the past few years if the AFC had won more Super Bowls, I've got a stadium to sell you. In other words, THE SUPER BOWL THEORY IS FOR AMUSEMENT PURPOSES ONLY.)
So for you sports-addicted couch potatoes like myself craving yet another piece of obscure trivia to use to impress your friends, here's the complete list of Bowl results and subsequent S&P performances. Go Rams!
Super Bowl Result | S&P 500 Performance | ||||
1967 | Green Bay 35, Kansas City 10 | +20.1% | |||
1968 | Green Bay 33, Oakland 14 | +7.7% | |||
1969 | New York Jets 16, Baltimore 7 | -11.4% | |||
1970 | Kansas City 23, Minnesota 7 | +0.1% | |||
1971 | Baltimore 16, Dallas 13 | +10.8% | |||
1972 | Dallas 24, Miami 3 | +15.7% | |||
1973 | Miami 14, Washington 7 | -17.4% | |||
1974 | Miami 24, Minnesota 7 | -29.7% | |||
1975 | Pittsburgh 16, Minnesota 6 | +31.5% | |||
1976 | Pittsburgh 21, Dallas 17 | +19.2% | |||
1977 | Oakland 32, Minnesota 14 | -11.5% | |||
1978 | Dallas 27, Denver 10 | +1.1% | |||
1979 | Pittsburgh 35, Dallas 31 | +12.3% | |||
1980 | Pittsburgh 31, L.A. Rams 19 | +25.8% | |||
1981 | Oakland 27, Philadelphia 10 | -9.7% | |||
1982 | San Francisco 26, Cincinnati 21 | +14.8% | |||
1983 | Washington 27, Miami 17 | +17.3% | |||
1984 | L.A. Raiders 38, Washington 9 | +1.4% | |||
1985 | San Francisco 38, Miami 16 | +26.3% | |||
1986 | Chicago 46, New England 10 | +14.6% | |||
1987 | N.Y. Giants 39, Denver 20 | +2.0% | |||
1988 | Washington 42, Denver 10 | +12.4% | |||
1989 | San Francisco 20, Cincinnati 16 | +27.3% | |||
1990 | San Francisco 55, Denver 10 | +6.6% | |||
1991 | N.Y. Giants 20, Buffalo 19 | +26.3% | |||
1992 | Washington 37, Buffalo 24 | +4.5% | |||
1993 | Dallas 52, Buffalo 17 | +7.1% | |||
1994 | Dallas 30, Buffalo 13 | -1.53% | |||
1995 | San Francisco 49, San Diego 26 | +34.1% | |||
1996 | Dallas 27, Pittsburgh 17 | +20.3% | |||
1997 | Green Bay 35, New England 21 | +31.0% | |||
1998 | Denver 31, Green Bay 24 | +26.67% | |||
1999 | Denver 34, Atlanta 19 | +19.53% |
24-Jan-2000 17:00:42 (00919725) Copyright 2000 Standard & Poor's Investment Advisory Services LLC. The information contained in this report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written consent from Standard & Poor's.