|
Tiger,
the NBA, and Roger
Brian
Trumbore
President/Editor, StocksandNews.com
And now for something completely ridiculous?or
is it?
I
saw a blurb in the Wall Street Journal on the effect
Tiger Woods' performances at the Masters golf tournament
have had in the bond pits. Such as "over the last
11 years, the bond market has performed best in Aprils
when Mr. Woods captures the green jacket, according
to analysts at BNP Paribas."
Well,
what about the equity market, specifically the S&P
500, I mused? If you just look at April in the years
Tiger has won the Masters, the performance is mixed.
But
what of his performance in all four majors compared
to the stock market? Here's a comparison of the S&P's
full-year total return and Tiger's 13 major titles.
1997?+37.4?Masters
1998?+28.6
1999?+21.0?PGA
2000?.-9.1?U.S. Open, British Open, PGA
2001?-11.9?Masters
2002?-22.1?Masters, U.S. Open
2003?+28.7
2004?+10.9
2005?.+4.9?Masters, British Open
2006?+15.8?British Open, PGA
2007?.+5.5?PGA 2008??????????
What
conclusions can you draw? Heck, nothing.
But
wait?as Tiger looks to recover from his latest knee
operation in time for the U.S. Open next June at Torrey
Pines, you can see that the two times he has won this
event have proved to be dismal ones for the market.
We're off to a poor start for equities thus far in
2008, so those looking for Tiger to tear up a course
he has performed well on in the past better not then
be looking for much in their portfolios should he
take his 3rd Open title. Plus, you can see in years
he doesn't win a major, the market registers double-digit
returns.
What
of other sports, though, you might be asking? I already
cover football in depth come Super Bowl time, and
after looking at World Series and Stanley Cup past
champions the last 10+ years, I can tell you there
are no clear patterns of market behavior in these
cases.
But
the NBA, the National Basketball Association, is a
different matter and as the playoffs here commence
this week, those of you who welcome the apparent return
of the #1 seed Los Angeles Lakers to prominence can
not also be bullish on stocks, because the last time
the Lakers won the title, three in a row, actually,
was 2000-2002, and you can see above this was an awful
time for equities.
Conversely,
the four times the San Antonio Spurs have won, 1999,
2003, 2005 and 2007, were all up years for Wall Street.
But
wait?there's more. I also looked at tennis, to see
if anything could be gleaned from the results of either
Wimbledon or the U.S. Open the past decade or so in
terms of those players still in the hunt today.
Check
this out. Roger Federer has won Wimbledon five years
in a row, 2003-2007, all up years for stocks. This
is significant because Federer has been ill much of
this year thus far and not as yet on his game, at
least the kind of performance we've become accustomed
to. In light of the early '08 stock market, this doesn't
bode well, does it? But if he manages to win, and
stocks are down year-to-date at that point, look for
a stupendous rally the rest of the year.
Finally,
back to Los Angeles, and looking at Wimbledon and
the U.S. Open, not only did the Lakers win, 2000-2002,
but L.A. natives Serena and Venus Williams took all
six possible Wimbledon and U.S. Open crowns during
that time. In other words, if you are 'long' the market,
the last thing you want is anything L.A.-based in
terms of the NBA or tennis' two top events.
Ridiculous?
I'm not so sure now.
Wall
Street History returns with more traditional statistical
analysis next week.
Brian
Trumbore
The
securities markets are subject to the risks of fluctuating
prices and the uncertainty of rates of return and
yields inherent in investing and past performance
is no guarantee of future results.
|
