Thirty years ago, the Cowboys played the Bills in the Super Bowl. As a Cowboys fan, I wanted to watch the game, but my second son was scheduled to be born that day.
Luckily, our doctor said, “if you want me to be the one to deliver your baby, you need to induce early.”
So, I got to watch the Cowboys win with my youngest in hand ... while his mother shot me angry looks as I woke him up with my screaming.
That anchors the Super Bowl as a special day for me ... but some believe it’s also a "special day" for markets.
The theory is a Super Bowl win for a team from the AFC foretells a decline in the stock market – while a win for the NFC means the stock market will rise in the coming year. There is one big caveat ... the history of that "indicator" counts the Pittsburgh Steelers as NFC because that’s where they got their start. If you accept that caveat, it has been on the money 33 years out of 41 - an 80% success rate. Sounds good, right?
Come on ... you know better!
There is no substantial evidence to suggest that the outcome of the Super Bowl has any significant impact on stock market returns.
The stock market is driven by many factors, including economic data, company earnings, and overall market sentiment, rather than the outcome of a single sporting event.
Ultimately, it’s important to recognize that the stock market is a complex system – and that no single event, such as the Super Bowl, can predict its performance. While the Super Bowl may be a fun event and a source of excitement for many people, it’s not a reliable indicator of stock market returns.
Here are some other “fun” stock market fallacies:
- January Indicator
- Aspirin Count Theory
- Hemline Indicator
- Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Indicator
- Men’s Underwear Index
- Big Mac Index
Back to Reality
Rationally, we understand that football and the stock market have nothing in common. And we probably intuitively understand that correlation ≠ causation. Yet, we crave order and look for signs that make markets seem more predictable.
The problem with randomness is that it can appear meaningful.
Wall Street is, unfortunately, inundated with theories that attempt to predict the performance of the stock market and the economy. The only difference between this and other theories is that we openly recognize the ridiculousness of this indicator.
More people than you would hope, or guess, attempt to forecast the market based on gut, ancient wisdom, and prayers.
While hope and prayer are good things ... They aren’t good trading strategies.
As goofy as it sounds, some of these “far-fetched” theories perform better than professional money managers with immense capital, research teams, and decades of experience.
Here is something to ponder...
What percentage of active managers beat the S&P 500 in any given year?
... Now, what percentage beat the S&P 500 over 15 years?
The percentage of active managers who beat the S&P 500 in any given year can vary, but it is typically low. According to research by S&P Dow Jones Indices, the majority of active managers underperform the S&P 500 over the long term.
For example, in 2020, only 24.5% of large-cap fund managers outperformed the S&P 500. In 2019, the figure was slightly higher at 28.2%, but in 2018 it was just 17.2%. These figures are representative of a broader trend in which a relatively small percentage of active managers outperform the benchmark index in any given year.
Over 15 years, the answer is about 5% of active managers are able to beat the performance of the S&P 500 Index (and that’s in a predominantly bull market). That’s significantly worse than chance. It means that, in general, what they’re doing is hurting, not helping.
It's worth noting that these figures represent the average performance of active managers across all market segments and time periods. The percentage of managers who outperform the S&P 500 in any given year can be influenced by a number of factors, including the overall performance of the stock market, the specific market segment being analyzed, and the time period being considered.
In conclusion, while there are some active managers who outperform the S&P 500 in any given year, the majority of them underperform the benchmark index over the long term.
via Gaping Void
There’s simply too much information out there for us to digest, process, rank, and use appropriately.
In 2009, I wrote an article about how things aren’t always what they appear to be. In it, I mentioned the human predisposition to find patterns in data. At the time, I was still analyzing and marking up charts looking for patterns ... but I was also using early AI and computers to find better patterns and remove my fear, greed, and discretionary mistakes.
I suspect that the desire to find patterns is the same element of human nature that leads people to become superstitious, read their horoscope, or go to a fortuneteller. It is also the reason so many authors and speakers sell access to their chart patterns that supposedly work. The successes are much more startling than the failures. So the successes stand out.
-"Things Aren't Always What They Appear To Be"
Today, my stance is even more extreme. Every second you spend looking at a market is a second wasted.
There are people beating the markets — not by using the Super Bowl Indicator ... they’re doing it with more algorithms and better technology.
There will never be less data or slower markets.
Onwards.
The Big Mac Index: Worth Paying Attention To?
Last week, I wrote about various “indicators” for markets that just don’t make sense — like the Superbowl Indicator. The lesson from those indicators is that we crave order and look for signs that make markets seem a little bit more predictable, even where there are none. This is especially true in complex systems like the stock market, where so many variables and factors are at play that it can be difficult to predict or explain why things happen.
Now, it doesn't mean there aren't patterns - and benefits to watching them. Warren Buffet has proven that. In order to improve your understanding of "markets" you can focus on the fundamentals of individual companies and industries rather than broader market trends. By conducting thorough research and analysis of financials, management, and competitive landscapes of companies, you can make informed decisions about which stocks to buy or sell. Another way to improve your understanding of the market is to focus on long-term trends and avoid getting caught up in short-term fluctuations. It's about focusing on what doesn't change - instead of what does. But, ultimately, you should realize that if you don't know what your edge is ... you don't have one. And, market movements are getting faster, more automated, and harder to predict over time, not less.
With that said, Wall Street is still inundated with theories that attempt to predict the performance of the stock market and the economy. More people than you would hope, or guess, attempt to forecast the market based on gut instinct, ancient wisdom, and prayers.
While hope and prayer are good things ... they aren’t good trading strategies.
It’s true that there are many indices and economic indicators that can provide valuable insights into the workings of economies and markets. While some of these indices may seem “out there,” or even frivolous, they can often shed light on underlying economic trends and realities.
One example of this is the Big Mac Index, which is published annually by The Economist. This index is based on the idea of purchasing power parity, which suggests that exchange rates should adjust to ensure that the price of a basket of goods is the same in different countries. The Big Mac Index uses the price of a McDonald’s Big Mac burger as a proxy for this basket of goods. It compares the price of a Big Mac in different countries to determine whether currencies are overvalued or undervalued.
While the Big Mac Index is not a perfect measure of purchasing power parity, it can provide valuable insights into the relative value of different currencies and the economic factors that influence exchange rates. By looking beyond the headline numbers, and digging into the underlying data and trends, investors and economists can gain a deeper understanding of the forces shaping the global economy.
Ultimately, the key to using economic indicators like the Big Mac Index is to approach them with a critical eye and a willingness to dig deeper. By looking beyond the surface level and using data-driven analysis to understand the underlying trends and drivers of economic performance, we can gain a more accurate picture of the economic realities shaping the world around us.
In 2020, when I last talked about the Big Mac Index, the Swiss Franc was 20.9% overvalued based on the PPP rate. That math was based on the idea that, in Switzerland, a Big Mac costs 6.50 francs. In the U.S., it costs $5.71. The implied exchange rate was 1.14, and the actual exchange rate was 0.94 - thus, 20.9 was overvalued. At the time, the most undervalued was South Africa.
As of the end of 2022, The Swiss Franc is still the most overvalued but has now increased to a whopping 35.4%. Meanwhile, the South African rand has “increased” to only 45.9% undervalued, making the Egyptian Pound the most undervalued currency at 65.6%.
Click the image below to see the interactive graphic.
via The Economist
One of the main limitations of the index is that the price of a Big Mac reflects non-tradable elements such as rent and labor, which can vary widely across different countries and can distort the accuracy of the index. This means that the index is most useful when comparing countries that are at roughly the same stage of development and have similar economic structures and cost of living. Consequently, while it can provide some useful insights into exchange rates and currency values, it is important to recognize that it is only a rough guide and has some limitations when comparing countries.
Another limitation of the index is that it does not consider factors such as taxes, trade barriers, and transportation costs, which can also affect the relative value of currencies. These factors can be especially important in countries highly dependent on imports or exports. They can lead to significant disparities in currency values that are not reflected in the Big Mac Index.
Despite these limitations, the Big Mac Index can still be useful for gaining insights into global economic trends and currency values. By using the index in conjunction with other economic indicators and data sources, investors and economists can achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the forces shaping the global economy and make more informed decisions about how to invest their money.
Obviously, there are more factors at play if something can be significantly overvalued or undervalued for multiple years without significant consequences.
It is not meant to be the most precise gauge, but it works as a global standard because Big Macs are global and have consistent ingredients and production methods. It’s lighthearted enough to be a good introduction for college students learning more about economics.
You can read more about the Big Mac index here or read the methodology behind the index here.
Posted at 05:32 PM in Business, Current Affairs, Food and Drink, Ideas, Just for Fun, Market Commentary, Trading, Trading Tools, Travel | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0)