the BULLS pull 4 the Eagles!!!

[teknobucks]

imported post

The Bulls Pull for the Eagles
The theory, invented by the late New York Times sportswriter Leonard Koppett, says that if the NFC team -- or an AFC team that originally was an NFC member -- wins the game, the stock market, as measured by the S&P 500-stock index, will rise for the year. Conversely, if the AFC team wins, the market will go down. For such an unscientific prognostication tool, the theory has a pretty impressive track record: It has been right 30 out of 38 times since the first Super Bowl in 1967 (so early in the event's history that it didn't even have a Roman numeral attached), or 78.9% of the time.

Admittedly, the Super Bowl theory has had something of a mixed record over the past few years. It was thrown for a loss in 2004 by the AFC Patriots' 32-29 win over the Carolina Panthers, as the S&P 500 index rose 9.0%.

MISSED CALLS. The theory was on target the two preceding years, however. In 2003, the S&P 500 went up a stunning 26%, no doubt in part because of the NFC Tampa Bay Buccaneers' 48-21 victory over the Oakland Raiders in Super Bowl XXXVII. And in 2002, the Patriots' 20-17 victory over the NFC St. Louis Rams presaged a down market year. Sure enough, the S&P 500 fell about 24%.

Before that, though, the theory suffered a Buffalo Bills-like stretch of failure -- four years, to be exact. The market lost ground in 2001 as the AFC Baltimore Ravens, which has NFL roots as the former Cleveland Browns, beat the NFC New York Giants 34-7. And the NFC St. Louis Rams' 23-16 victory over the AFC Tennessee Titans in January, 2000, should have been bullish -- but the S&P index fell 10.1% for the year. The opposite happened in the previous two years, as the S&P posted strong gains even though the John Elway-led Denver Broncos of the AFC won the championship each time.

A few other blemishes have blotted the theory's otherwise impressive record. In 1970, the AFC Kansas City Chiefs won and the S&P gained 0.1%; 1984, the AFC Los Angeles Raiders won, and the S&P rose 1.4%; 1990, when the NFC San Francisco 49ers were victorious, the S&P lost 6.56%. Also, in 1994, the NFC Dallas Cowboys won, but the S&P fell 1.53%.

Other fun Super Bowl Theory facts:

-- When the NFC wins, the S&P on average gains 16.42%. This has been true about 90% of the time. When the AFC wins, the losses are not as severe, only down on average 6.5%;

-- Pure AFC teams have won 11 of 38 games. Six of those victories coincided with economic slowdowns or recessions.

So, should investors phone their brokers on the morning of Jan. 27 to buy call options (bets that the market will go higher) on the S&P 500 if the "Iggles" pull off an upset? Or should they purchase "puts" (bets on a downturn) on the index if Adam Vinateri boots the Pats to yet another miracle finish? Well, as a market predictor, the theory has had a fairly good run. But it would be ludicrous to rely on it as an investing strategy. As we've said before, the Super Bowl Theory is for amusement purposes only. So go ahead and cheer for Philly, or for Belichick's boys. As always, we'll be rooting for the "500."

Here's how the Super Bowl Theory has performed in the 38 Super Bowls preceding this year's game:

The Super Bowl Theory -- 1967-2004 Year Outcome Winning Conf. S&P 500 Perf.

1967 Green Bay 35, Kansas City 10 NFC +20.1%

1968 Green Bay 33, Oakland 14 NFC +7.7%

1969 New York Jets 16, Balt. Colts 7 AFC -11.4%

1970 Kansas City 23, Minnesota 7 AFC +0.1%

1971 Baltimore 16, Dallas 13 NFC +10.8%

1972 Dallas 24, Miami 3 NFC +15.7%

1973 Miami 14, Washington 7 AFC -17.4%

1974 Miami 24, Minnesota 7 AFC -29.7%

1975 Pittsburgh 16, Minnesota 6 NFC +31.5%

1976 Pittsburgh 21, Dallas 17 NFC +19.2%

1977 Oakland 32, Minnesota 14 AFC -11.5%

1978 Dallas 27, Denver 10 NFC +1.1%

1979 Pittsburgh 35, Dallas 31 NFC +12.3%

1980 Pittsburgh 31, L.A. Rams 19 NFC +25.8%

1981 Oakland 27, Philadelphia 10 AFC -9.7%

1982 San Francisco 26, Cincinnati 21 NFC +14.8%

1983 Washington 27, Miami 17 NFC +17.3%

1984 L.A. Raiders 38, Washington 9 AFC +1.4%

1985 San Francisco 38, Miami 16 NFC +26.3%

1986 Chicago 46, New England 10 NFC +14.6%

1987 N.Y. Giants 39, Denver 20 NFC +2.0%

1988 Washington 42, Denver 10 NFC +12.4%

1989 San Francisco 20, Cincinnati 16 NFC +27.3%

1990 San Francisco 55, Denver 10 NFC -6.6%

1991 N.Y. Giants 20, Buffalo 19 NFC +26.3%

1992 Washington 37, Buffalo 24 NFC +4.5%

1993 Dallas 52, Buffalo 17 NFC +7.1%

1994 Dallas 30, Buffalo 13 NFC -1.5%

1995 San Francisco 49, San Diego 26 NFC +34.1%

1996 Dallas 27, Pittsburgh 17 NFC +20.3%

1997 Green Bay 35, New England 21 NFC +31.0%

1998 Denver 31, Green Bay 24 AFC +26.7%

1999 Denver 34, Atlanta 19 AFC +19.5%

2000 St. Louis 23, Tennessee 16 NFC -10.1%

2001 Baltimore 34, New York 7 NFC -13.0%

2002 New England 20, St. Louis 17 AFC -23.5%

2003 Tampa Bay 48, Oakland 21 NFC +26.4%

2004 New England 32, Carolina 29 AFC +9.0%


]

 

[teknobucks]

imported post

http://tinyurl.com/3qvpx

is mt right??? come on Eagles!!!!!!:shock:

 

[tsptalk]

imported post

2001 Baltimore 34, New York 7 NFC -13.0%

That's an AFC'er. Couldn't you tell by the -13%

 

[teknobucks]

imported post

The Jar

When things in your life seem almost to much to handle, when 24 hours in a day are not enough, remember the mayonnaise jar........and the beer.

A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, wordlessly, he picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the students if the jar was full.

They agreed that it was. So the professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was.

The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar was full. The students responded with an unanimous "yes."

The professor then produced two cans of beer from under the table and poured the entire contents into the jar, effectively filling the empty space between the sand. The students laughed.

"Now," said the professor, as the laughter subsided, "I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the important things--your family, your children, your health, your friends, your favorite passions--things that if everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still be full. "The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, your house, your car. The sand is everything else--the small stuff."

If you put the sand into the jar first," he continued, "there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life. If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff, you will never have room for the things that are important to you. Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Play with your children. Take time to get medical checkups. Take your partner out to dinner. Play another 18. There will always be time to clean the house, and fix the disposal. "Take care of the golf balls first, the things that really matter. Set your priorities. The rest is just sand."

One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the beer represented. The professor smiled. "I'm glad you asked. The beer is fun ... the beer is pure, unadulterated silliness. It just goes to show you that no matter how full your life may seem, there's always room for a couple of beers."

Keep the joy and fun in your life!


GREAT FOOTBALL WX>: http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=jax



enjoy the superbowl everyone.......PRAY 4 THE EAGLES 2 WIN!!!

 

[Rolo]

imported post

Hey saraho, you wanna talk about the market being rational now? ehehehe

 

[cowboy]

imported post

Lol! Tekno, if I was a philly fan I would pray too!!

 

[Guest]

imported post

Rolo wrote:

Hey saraho, you wanna talk about the market being rational now? ehehehe

Rolo, everyone knows that the marketmay be very inefficient (i.e. irrational) in the short run, yet quite efficient (i.e. rational) over the long haul.

 

[Rolo]

imported post

'long haul'

I hope to be retired by then.



Seriously...like you, I am somewhere between an allocator and a manic day-trader.