A Super Bowl 60 Portfolio Pick

 The Patriots and Seahawks have some Super Bowl history — and some think the outcome might have an impact on the stock market — not to mention your 401(k)! 

Yes, that’s what adherents of the so-called Super Bowl Indicator[i] would have you believe — based on a “theory” that when a team from the old National Football League wins the Super Bowl, the S&P 500 will rise, and when a team from the old American Football League prevails, stock prices will fall.

It’s a “theory” that has been found to be correct nearly 80% of the time — for roughly three-quarters of the 59 Super Bowls to date.

Not that it hasn’t been tackled short of the “goal” line…particularly in recent years.

Portfolio Prognostications

One need to look back no further than last year’s victory by the NFC/original NFL Philadelphia Eagles commanding victory over the AFC/original AFL Kansas City Chiefs to see a testament to this theory — as the S&P 500 closed up nearly 17% in 2025.

That said, you might recall the previous year’s victory by the (original AFL) Kansas City Chiefs — which, according to the Indicator, should have predicted a portfolio predicament for the S&P 500 —  but wound up with a 23% gain for the year. Or the year before that when those (same) Kansas City Chiefs prevailed over the (original NFL) 49ers — but the S&P 500 still rose 25%.

On the other hand, the year before that the victory by the (old NFL) Los Angeles Rams (over the old AFL) Cincinnati Bengals “should” have been a portent of good times, only to see the S&P 500 slump more than 19% — dare I say “sacked” for its biggest loss since 2008.

And while the previous year’s blow-out victory by the NFC’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers[ii] (over those same AFL Kansas City Chiefs) bolstered the premise behind the “theory,” the year before that the win by these same Kansas City Chiefs (who, despite a rough 2025, have become something of a regular in the big contest in recent years) over the then-NFC Champion San Francisco 49ers undermined its track record (or did your 401(k) miss that 18.4% rise in the S&P 500?).

Or how about the year before THAT when the AFC’s New England Patriots (who once upon a time were the AFL’s Boston Patriots) bested the NFC champion Los Angeles Rams — but the S&P 500 was up more than 30% that year (2019).

And then there was the year before that when a win by the (old NFL and) NFC champion Philadelphia Eagles against the AFC Champion Patriots turned out to be a loser, marketwise, with the S&P 500 down more than 6% (though for most of the year it was quite a different story). Ditto the year before, when the epic comeback by those same AFC Champion Patriots against the then-NFC champion Atlanta Falcons failed to forestall a 2017 market surge.

Now, one might think that the real “spoiler” to this market “theory” is the New England Patriots (who not so long ago were perennial Super Bowl participants — and are, of course, back this year, albeit under new “management”) — but the year before that, the AFC’s (and original AFL) Broncos’ 24-10 victory over the Carolina Panthers, who represented the NFC, also proved to be an “exception.” 

Market Makings

Indeed, one might well wonder why, in view of that consistent string of “exceptions” that we’re still talking about this “theory” — but, as it turns out, that’s an unusual (albeit consistent) break in the streak that was sustained in 2015 following Super Bowl XLIX, when the AFC’s New England Patriots (yes, they DO show up a lot — though it’s been a while) bested the Seattle Seahawks[iii] 28-24 to earn their (at the time) fourth Super Bowl title. Yes, those same Seattle Seahawks that will face those (same) New England Patriots on Sunday.

ad space

It also “worked” in 2014, when the Seahawks bumped off the legacy AFL Denver Broncos, and in 2013, when a dramatic fourth-quarter comeback rescued a victory by the Baltimore Ravens — who, though representing the AFC, are technically a legacy NFL team via their Cleveland Browns roots (this is where things start to get confusing, as the Ravens, who were the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1995 (though the NFL still views them as an expansion team) filling the hole left by the then-Baltimore Colts’ 1984 “dead of night” move to Indianapolis.

Admittedly, the fact that the markets fared well in 2013 was hardly a true test of the Super Bowl Theory since, as it turned out, both teams in Super Bowl XLVII — those Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers (yes, they show up a lot also — they just miss Joe Montana) — were, technically, NFL legacy teams.

However, consider that in 2012 a team from the old NFL (the New York Giants) took on — and took down — one from the old AFL (the New England Patriots — yes, those New England Patriots… again). And, in fact, 2012 was a pretty good year for stocks (and people who like to see the Patriots lose in dramatic fashion).

Steel ‘Curtains’?

On the other hand, the year before that, the Pittsburgh Steelers (representing the American Football Conference, but an old NFL team) took on the National Football Conference’s Green Bay Packers —two teams that had some of the oldest, deepest and, yes, most “storied” NFL roots, with the Steelers formed in 1933 (as the Pittsburgh Pirates) and the Packers founded in 1919.

According to the Super Bowl Theory, 2011 should have been a good year for stocks (because, regardless of who won, a legacy NFL team would prevail). But as some may recall, while the Dow gained ground for the year, the S&P 500 was, well, flat (dare we say “deflated”?).

And then there was the string of Super Bowls where the contests were all between legacy NFL teams (thus, no matter who won, the markets should have risen):

• 2006, when the Steelers bested the Seattle Seahawks (yes, they’ve been here more than you might appreciate — unless you’re a Seahawks fan, anyway).
• 2007, when the Indianapolis Colts (those old Baltimore Colts) beat the Chicago Bears 29-17.
• 2009, when the Pittsburgh Steelers took on the Arizona Cardinals (who had once been the NFL’s St. Louis Cardinals); and
• 2010, when the New Orleans Saints bested the Indianapolis Colts, who, as we’ve already remarked, had roots dating back to the NFL legacy Baltimore Colts.

Sure enough, the markets were higher in each of those years.

As for 2008? Well, that was the year that the NFC’s New York Giants upended the hopes of the AFL-legacy Patriots (yes, those Patriots, and yes, those New York Giants) for a perfect season, but it didn’t do any favors for the stock market. In fact, that was the last time that the Super Bowl Theory didn’t “work” (well, until last year, the year before last — oh, and the year before that — and the year before…).

Patriot Gains

Times were better for Patriots fans in 2005, when they bested the NFC’s Philadelphia Eagles 24-21. Indeed, according to the Super Bowl Theory, the markets should have been down that year—but the S&P 500 rose – albeit just 2.55%.

Of course, Super Bowl Theory proponents would tell you that the 2002 win by the New England Patriots accurately foretold the continuation of the bear market into a third year (at the time, the first accurate result in five years). But the Patriots’ 2004 Super Bowl win against the Carolina Panthers (the one that probably nobody except Patriots fans and disappointed Panthers advocates remember because it was overshadowed by the infamous “wardrobe malfunction”) failed to anticipate a fall rally that helped push the S&P 500 to a near 9% gain that year, “sacking” the indicator for another loss (couldn’t resist).

Bronco ‘Busters’

Consider also that, despite victories by the AFL-legacy Denver Broncos in 1998 and 1999, the S&P 500 continued its winning ways, while victories by the NFL-legacy St. Louis (by way of Los Angeles) Rams (that have since returned to the City of Angels) and the Baltimore Ravens (those former “Browns”) did nothing to dispel the bear markets of 2000 and 2001, respectively.

In fact, the Super Bowl Theory “worked” 28 times between 1967 and 1997, then went 0-4 between 1998 and 2001, only to get back on track from 2002 on.

ad space

Indeed, the Buccaneers’ move to the NFC was part of a swap with the Seattle Seahawks, who did, in fact, enter the NFL as an NFC team in 1976 but shuttled quickly over to the AFC (where they remained through 2001) before returning to the NFC.[2] And, not having entered the league until 1976, regardless of when they began, can the Seahawks truly be considered a “legacy” NFL squad?

Bear in mind as well, that in 2006, when the Seahawks (what did I tell you?) made their first Super Bowl appearance — and lost — the S&P 500 gained nearly 16%.

Some Fun Facts to Share About the Game

This is the first time the Super Bowl has ever been played on February 8. It’s a rematch of Super Bowl XLIX. Super Bowl rematches are uncommon — this will be the 10th such pairing where the same two teams have met in the big game before. Historically, rematch teams have won back-to-back about two-thirds of the time.

The New England Patriots have chosen to wear all-white uniforms — white jerseys and white pants — for the game. They had the choice as the designated home team and opted for the white combo, in which they’re undefeated this season. The Seattle Seahawks will wear their navy-blue jerseys and navy-blue pants, continuing the look they wore in their playoff wins. Which means this matchup will feature an especially striking all-white vs. all-navy contrast — something rare in Super Bowl history and highly visual for TV broadcasts.

Through the first 59 Super Bowls (up to SB LIX), the white-jersey team has won roughly ~65–70% of the time. Notwithstanding that trend, the Seahawks are (currently) favored to win.

Overall, and particularly in view of the exciting playoff games that have led up to it, it looks like it should be a good game. And that — whether you are a proponent of the Super Bowl Theory or not—would be one in which regardless of which team wins, we all do!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] An alternate theory linking the Super Bowl to stock market performance in reverse fashion postulates that Wall Street’s results can be used to predict the outcome of the game. According to this theory, if the Dow rises from the end of November until Super Bowl game day, the team whose full name appears later in the alphabet will win. Some people have too much time on their hands…

[ii] “Purists” still dispute how to interpret Tampa Bay’s 2003 victory, since the Buccaneers spent their first NFL season in the AFC before moving to the NFC.

[iii] As an interesting side note, Seattle is the only team to have played in both the AFC and NFC Championship Games, having relocated from the AFC to the NFC during league realignment prior to the 2002 season. The Seahawks are the only NFL team to switch conferences twice in the post-merger era. The franchise began play in 1976 in the NFC West division but switched conferences with the Buccaneers after one season and joined the AFC West.

Could Super Bowl 59 Influence Your 401(k)’s Future?

 Will your 401(k) be chopped by the Chiefs — or soar with the Eagles?

That’s what adherents of the so-called Super Bowl Indicator[1] would likely conclude, after all. It’s a “theory” that when a team from the old National Football League wins the Super Bowl, the S&P 500 will rise, and when a team from the old American Football League prevails, stock prices will fall.

It’s a “theory” that has been found to be correct nearly 80% of the time — for 41 of the 58 Super Bowls, in fact. Not that it hasn’t been tackled short of the goal line.

Portfolio Prognostications

One needs to look back no further than last year’s victory by the (original AFL) Kansas City Chiefs that, according to the Indicator, should have predicated a portfolio predicament for the S&P 500 — but wound up with a 23% gain for the year. Or the year before that when those (same) Kansas City Chiefs prevailed over the original NFL 49ers — but the S&P 500 still rose 25%.

On the other hand, the year before that, the victory by the (old NFL) Los Angeles Rams (over the old AFL) Cincinnati Bengals “should” have been a portent of good times, only to see the S&P 500 slump more than 19% — for its biggest loss since 2008. 

And while the previous year’s blow-out victory by the NFC’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers (over those AFL Kansas City Chiefs) bolstered the premise behind the “theory,” the year before that the win by these same Kansas City Chiefs (who have become something of a regular in the big contest) over the then-NFC Champion San Francisco 49ers undermined its track record (or did your 401(k) miss that 18.4% rise in the S&P 500?).

Or how about the year before THAT when the AFC’s New England Patriots (who once upon a time were the AFL’s Boston Patriots) bested the NFC champion Los Angeles Rams — but the S&P 500 was up more than 30% that year (2019).

Or, looking the other way, the year before that a win by the (old NFL and) NFC champion Philadelphia Eagles against the AFC Champion Patriots turned out to be a loser, marketwise, with the S&P 500 down more than 6% (though for most of the year it was quite a different story). Ditto the year before, when the epic comeback by those same AFC Champion Patriots against the then-NFC champion Atlanta Falcons failed to forestall a 2017 market surge.

Now, one might think that the real “spoiler” to this market “theory” is the New England Patriots (who not so long ago were perennial Super Bowl participants) — but the year before that, the AFC’s (and original AFL) Broncos’ 24-10 victory over the Carolina Panthers, who represented the NFC, also proved to be an “exception.” Now, of course, we might say the same thing about the Chiefs — who, should they prevail on Sunday, would be the first team to win three in a row (though quite a few have managed to take two in a row).

Market Makings

Indeed, one might well wonder why, in view of that consistent string of “exceptions” that we’re still talking about this “theory” — but, as it turns out, that’s an unusual (albeit consistent) break in the streak that was sustained in 2015 following Super Bowl XLIX, when the AFC’s New England Patriots (yes, they DO show up a lot – or at least used to) bested the Seattle Seahawks 28-24 to earn their fourth Super Bowl title.

It also “worked” in 2014, when the Seahawks bumped off the legacy AFL Denver Broncos, and in 2013, when a dramatic fourth-quarter comeback rescued a victory by the Baltimore Ravens — who, though representing the AFC, are technically a legacy NFL team via their Cleveland Browns roots. This is where things start to get confusing, as the Ravens, who were the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1995 (though the NFL still views them as an expansion team) filling the hole left by the then-Baltimore Colts’ 1984 “dead of night” move to Indianapolis.

Admittedly, the fact that the markets fared well in 2013 was hardly a true test of the Super Bowl Theory since, as it turned out, both teams in Super Bowl XLVII — those Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers (yes, they show up a lot also — they just miss Joe Montana) — were, technically, NFL legacy teams.

However, consider that in 2012 a team from the old NFL (the New York Giants) took on — and took down — one from the old AFL (the New England Patriots — yes, those New England Patriots… again). And, in fact, 2012 was a pretty good year for stocks (and people who like to see the Patriots lose in dramatic fashion).

Steel ‘Curtains’?

On the other hand, the year before that, the Pittsburgh Steelers (representing the American Football Conference, but an old NFL team) took on the National Football Conference’s Green Bay Packers —two teams that had some of the oldest, deepest and, yes, most “storied” NFL roots, with the Steelers formed in 1933 (as the Pittsburgh Pirates) and the Packers founded in 1919.

According to the Super Bowl Theory, 2011 should have been a good year for stocks (because, regardless of who won, a legacy NFL team would prevail). But as some may recall, while the Dow gained ground for the year, the S&P 500 was, well, flat (dare we say “deflated”?).

And then there was the string of Super Bowls where the contests were all between legacy NFL teams (thus, no matter who won, the markets should have risen):

• 2006, when the Steelers bested the Seattle Seahawks;
• 2007, when the Indianapolis Colts (those old Baltimore Colts) beat the Chicago Bears 29-17;
• 2009, when the Pittsburgh Steelers took on the Arizona Cardinals (who had once been the NFL’s St. Louis Cardinals); and
• 2010, when the New Orleans Saints bested the Indianapolis Colts, who, as we’ve already remarked, had roots dating back to the NFL legacy Baltimore Colts.

Sure enough, the markets were higher in each of those years.

As for 2008? Well, that was the year that the NFC’s New York Giants upended the hopes of the AFL-legacy Patriots (yes, those Patriots) for a perfect season, but it didn’t do any favors for the stock market. In fact, that was the last time that the Super Bowl Theory didn’t “work” (well, until last year, the year before last — oh, and the year before that — and the year before…).

Patriot Gains

Times were better for Patriots fans in 2005, when they bested the NFC’s Philadelphia Eagles 24-21. Indeed, according to the Super Bowl Theory, the markets should have been down that year — but the S&P 500 rose — albeit just 2.55%.

Of course, Super Bowl Theory proponents would tell you that the 2002 win by the New England Patriots accurately foretold the continuation of the bear market into a third year (at the time, the first accurate result in five years). But the Patriots’ 2004 Super Bowl win against the Carolina Panthers (the one that probably nobody, except Patriots fans and disappointed Panthers advocates, remembers because it was overshadowed by the infamous “wardrobe malfunction”) failed to anticipate a fall rally that helped push the S&P 500 to a near 9% gain that year, “sacking” the indicator for another loss (couldn’t resist).

Bronco ‘Busters’

Consider also that, despite victories by the AFL-legacy Denver Broncos in 1998 and 1999, the S&P 500 continued its winning ways, while victories by the NFL-legacy St. Louis (by way of Los Angeles) Rams (that have since returned to the City of Angels) and the Baltimore Ravens (those former “Browns”) did nothing to dispel the bear markets of 2000 and 2001, respectively.

In fact, the Super Bowl Theory “worked” 28 times between 1967 and 1997, then went 0-4 between 1998 and 2001, only to get back on track from 2002 on (though “purists” still dispute how to interpret Tampa Bay’s 2003 victory, since the Buccaneers spent their first NFL season in the AFC before moving to the NFC).

Indeed, the Buccaneers’ move to the NFC was part of a swap with the Seattle Seahawks, who did, in fact, enter the NFL as an NFC team in 1976 but shuttled quickly over to the AFC (where they remained through 2001) before returning to the NFC.[2] And, not having entered the league until 1976, regardless of when they began, can the Seahawks truly be considered a “legacy” NFL squad?

Bear in mind as well, that in 2006, when the Seahawks made their first Super Bowl appearance —and lost — the S&P 500 gained nearly 16%.

Fun Facts to Share About the Game

The Kansas City Chiefs will wear their away white uniforms — that means, of course, that the NFC champion Philadelphia Eagles will be in their home greens — that’s the same colored pairings as in Super Bowl LVII. As it turns out, in all four Super Bowl appearances, the Eagles have worn their home green (with one win in Super Bowl LII).

In the Patrick Mahomes era, the Chiefs have worn their home jerseys in three of their four Super Bowl appearances (LIV, LV, LVIII), winning twice in red. However, Kansas City last wore its white jerseys in the Super Bowl in its first meeting with the Eagles — when the Chiefs beat Philadelphia, 38-35. 

That said, the team wearing white jerseys in the Super Bowl has won 16 of the last 20 Super Bowls. 

Right now, the Chiefs are favored to beat the Eagles — but that’s the first time in their three-year streak of Super Bowl attendance that they’ve been the favorites.

All in all, and particularly in view of the exciting playoff games that have led up to it, it looks like it should be a good game.

And that — whether you are a proponent of the Super Bowl Theory or not — would be one in which regardless of which team wins, we all do!

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[1] An alternate theory linking the Super Bowl to stock market performance in reverse fashion postulates that Wall Street’s results can be used to predict the outcome of the game. According to this theory, if the Dow rises from the end of November until Super Bowl game day, the team whose full name appears later in the alphabet will win. Some people have too much time on their hands…

[2] Note: Seattle is the only team to have played in both the AFC and NFC Championship Games, having relocated from the AFC to the NFC during league realignment prior to the 2002 season. The Seahawks are the only NFL team to switch conferences twice in the post-merger era. The franchise began play in 1976 in the NFC West division but switched conferences with the Buccaneers after one season and joined the AFC West.

Could Your 401(k)’s Fate Rest on the Winner of Super Bowl 58?

Will your 401(k) be chopped by the Chiefs—or find gold with the 49ers?

That’s what adherents of the so-called Super Bowl Indicator[1] would likely conclude, after all. It’s a “theory” that when a team from the old National Football League wins the Super Bowl, the S&P 500 will rise, and when a team from the old American Football League prevails, stock prices will fall.

It’s a “theory” that has been found to be correct nearly 80% of the time—for 41 of the 57 Super Bowls, in fact. Not that it hasn’t been tackled short of the goal line. 

Portfolio Prognostications

One needs to look back no further than last year’s victory by the (original AFL) Kansas City Chiefs that, according to the Indicator, should have predicted a portfolio predicament for the S&P 500—but wound up with a 25% gain for the year. Or the year before that when the victory by the Los Angeles Rams “should” have been a portent of good times, only to see the S&P 500 slump more than 19% for its biggest loss since 2008. 

And while the previous year’s victory by the NFC’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers bolstered the premise behind the “theory,” the year before that the win by these same Kansas City Chiefs—who have become something of a regular in the big contest—over the then-NFC champion San Francisco 49ers undermined its track record (or did your 401(k) miss that 18.4% rise in the S&P 500?). Or how about the year before THAT when the AFC’s New England Patriots (who once upon a time were the AFL’s Boston Patriots) bested the NFC champion Los Angeles Rams—but the S&P 500 was up more than 30% that year (2019).

Or, looking the other way, the year before that a win by the NFC champion Philadelphia Eagles against the AFC champion Patriots turned out to be a loser, marketwise, with the S&P 500 down more than 6% (though for most of the year it was quite a different story). Ditto the year before, when the epic comeback by those same AFC champion Patriots against the then-NFC champion Atlanta Falcons failed to forestall a 2017 market surge.

Now, one might think that the real “spoiler” to this market “theory” is the New England Patriots (who not so long ago were perennial Super Bowl participants)—but the year before that, the AFC’s (and original AFL) Broncos’ 24-10 victory over the Carolina Panthers, who represented the NFC, also proved to be an “exception.”

Market Makings

Indeed, one might well wonder why, in view of that consistent string of “exceptions” that we’re still talking about this “theory”—but, as it turns out, that’s an unusual (albeit consistent) break in the streak that was sustained in 2015 following Super Bowl XLIX, when the AFC’s New England Patriots (yes, they show up a lot) bested the Seattle Seahawks 28-24 to earn their fourth Super Bowl title.

It also “worked” in 2014, when the Seahawks bumped off the legacy AFL Denver Broncos, and in 2013, when a dramatic fourth-quarter comeback rescued a victory by the Baltimore Ravens—who, though representing the AFC, are technically a legacy NFL team via their Cleveland Browns roots. This is where things start to get confusing, as the Ravens, who were the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1995 (though the NFL still views them as an expansion team) filling the hole left by the then-Baltimore Colts’ 1984 “dead of night” move to Indianapolis.

Admittedly, the fact that the markets fared well in 2013 was hardly a true test of the Super Bowl Theory since, as it turned out, both teams in Super Bowl XLVII—those Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers—were, technically, NFL legacy teams.

However, consider that in 2012 a team from the old NFL (the New York Giants) took on—and took down—one from the old AFL (the New England Patriots—yes, those New England Patriots… again). And, in fact, 2012 was a pretty good year for stocks.

Steel ‘Curtains’?

On the other hand, the year before that, the Pittsburgh Steelers (representing the American Football Conference) took on the National Football Conference’s Green Bay Packers—two teams that had some of the oldest, deepest and, yes, most “storied” NFL roots, with the Steelers formed in 1933 (as the Pittsburgh Pirates) and the Packers founded in 1919. According to the Super Bowl Theory, 2011 should have been a good year for stocks (because, regardless of who won, a legacy NFL team would prevail).

But, as some may recall, while the Dow gained ground for the year, the S&P 500 was, well, flat (dare we say “deflated”?).

And then there was the string of Super Bowls where the contests were all between legacy NFL teams (thus, no matter who won, the markets should have risen):

• 2006, when the Steelers bested the Seattle Seahawks;
• 2007, when the Indianapolis Colts (those old Baltimore Colts) beat the Chicago Bears 29-17;
• 2009, when the Pittsburgh Steelers took on the Arizona Cardinals (who had once been the NFL’s St. Louis Cardinals); and
• 2010, when the New Orleans Saints bested the Indianapolis Colts, who, as we’ve already remarked, had roots dating back to the NFL legacy Baltimore Colts.

Sure enough, the markets were higher in each of those years.

As for 2008? Well, that was the year that the NFC’s New York Giants upended the hopes of the AFL-legacy Patriots (yes, those Patriots) for a perfect season, but it didn’t do any favors for the stock market. In fact, that was the last time that the Super Bowl Theory didn’t “work” (well, until last year, the year before last—oh, and the year before that—and the year before…).

Patriot Gains

Times were better for Patriots fans in 2005, when they bested the NFC’s Philadelphia Eagles 24-21. Indeed, according to the Super Bowl Theory, the markets should have been down that year—but the S&P 500 rose 2.55%.

Of course, Super Bowl Theory proponents would tell you that the 2002 win by the New England Patriots accurately foretold the continuation of the bear market into a third year (at the time, the first accurate result in five years). But the Patriots’ 2004 Super Bowl win against the Carolina Panthers (the one that probably nobody except Patriots fans and disappointed Panthers advocates remember because it was overshadowed by the infamous “wardrobe malfunction”) failed to anticipate a fall rally that helped push the S&P 500 to a near 9% gain that year, sacking the indicator for another loss (couldn’t resist).

Bronco ‘Busters’

Consider also that, despite victories by the AFL-legacy Denver Broncos in 1998 and 1999, the S&P 500 continued its winning ways, while victories by the NFL-legacy St. Louis (by way of Los Angeles) Rams (that have since returned to the City of Angels) and the Baltimore Ravens (those former “Browns”) did nothing to dispel the bear markets of 2000 and 2001, respectively.

In fact, the Super Bowl Theory “worked” 28 times between 1967 and 1997, then went 0-4 between 1998 and 2001, only to get back on track from 2002 on (though “purists” still dispute how to interpret Tampa Bay’s 2003 victory, since the Buccaneers spent their first NFL season in the AFC before moving to the NFC).

Indeed, the Buccaneers’ move to the NFC was part of a swap with the Seattle Seahawks, who did, in fact, enter the NFL as an NFC team in 1976 but shuttled quickly over to the AFC (where they remained through 2001) before returning to the NFC.[2] And, not having entered the league until 1976, regardless of when they began, can the Seahawks truly be considered a “legacy” NFL squad?

Bear in mind as well, that in 2006, when the Seahawks made their first Super Bowl appearance—and lost—the S&P 500 gained nearly 16%.

Some fun facts to share about the game:

The 2023 game drew between 113 million and 115.1 million viewers—making it the most-watched U.S. telecast of all time.

The 49ers are 5-2 in previous Super Bowl appearances. The Chiefs are 3-2. The two teams have met in the Super Bowl before—in 2020, when the Chiefs came from behind to beat the 49ers in Super Bowl LIV. Early odds have the 49ers a slight favorite, by about 2.5 points. 

This happens to be the first Super Bowl ever played in the state of Nevada (11 states have hosted—knew you’d want to know), and while everyone is saying Las Vegas, it’s actually (technically) taking place in Paradise, Nevada. 

The Chiefs have been designated the home team for the game—and will be wearing red. The team wearing white jerseys in the Super Bowl has won 16 of the last 19 Super Bowls, including the Chiefs in 2023 (though the last time Kansas City won before that they were wearing red).

Among other things (whether Taylor Swift will make it to the game on time), you can (even) bet on the color of the Gatorade that will be dumped on the winning team's coach.

All in all, and particularly in view of the exciting playoff games that have led up to it, it looks like it should be a good game.

And that—whether you are a proponent of the Super Bowl Theory or not—would be one in which regardless of which team wins, we all do!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[1] An alternate theory linking the Super Bowl to stock market performance in reverse fashion postulates that Wall Street’s results can be used to predict the outcome of the game. According to this theory, if the Dow rises from the end of November until Super Bowl game day, the team whose full name appears later in the alphabet will win. Some people have too much time on their hands…

[2] Note: Seattle is the only team to have played in both the AFC and NFC Championship Games, having relocated from the AFC to the NFC during league realignment prior to the 2002 season. The Seahawks are the only NFL team to switch conferences twice in the post-merger era. The franchise began play in 1976 in the NFC West division but switched conferences with the Buccaneers after one season and joined the AFC West.

Could Super Bowl LVII Flummox Your 401(k)?

Will your 401(k) be chipped by the Chiefs—or soar with the Eagles?

That’s what adherents of the so-called Super Bowl Indicator[1] would likely conclude, after all. It’s a “theory” that when a team from the old National Football League wins the Super Bowl, the S&P 500 will rise, and when a team from the old American Football League prevails, stock prices will fall.

It’s a “theory” that has been found to be correct nearly 80% of the time—for 41 of the 56 Super Bowls, in fact. Not that it hasn’t had its shortcomings.

One need to look back no further than last year’s victory by the Los Angeles Rams that should have been a portent of good times, only to see the S&P 500 slump more than 19% for its biggest loss since 2008.  And while the previous year’s victory by the NFC’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers bolstered the premise behind the “theory,” the year before that the win by the AFC’s (and original AFL) Kansas City Chiefs over the then-NFC Champion San Francisco 49ers undermined its track record (or did your 401(k) miss that 18.4% rise in the S&P 500?). Or how about the year before that when the AFC’s New England Patriots (who once upon a time were the AFL’s Boston Patriots) bested the NFC champion Los Angeles Rams—but the S&P 500 was up more than 30% that year (2019).

Or, looking the other way, the year before that a win by the NFC champion Philadelphia Eagles (back for this year’s contest) against the AFC Champion Patriots turned out to be a loser, marketwise, with the S&P 500 down more than 6% (though for most of the year it was quite a different story). Ditto the year before, when the epic comeback by those same AFC Champion Patriots against the then-NFC champion Atlanta Falcons failed to forestall a 2017 market surge.

Now, one might think that the real “spoiler” to this market “theory” is the New England Patriots—but the year before that, the AFC’s (and original AFL) Broncos’ 24-10 victory over the Carolina Panthers, who represented the NFC, also proved to be an “exception.”

Market Makings

You might well wonder why, in view of that consistent string of “exceptions” that we’re still talking about this “theory”—but, as it turns out, that’s an unusual (albeit consistent) break in the streak that was sustained in 2015 following Super Bowl XLIX, when the AFC’s New England Patriots (yes, they show up a lot) bested the Seattle Seahawks 28-24 to earn their fourth Super Bowl title.

It also “worked” in 2014, when the Seahawks bumped off the legacy AFL Denver Broncos, and in 2013, when a dramatic fourth-quarter comeback rescued a victory by the Baltimore Ravens—who, though representing the AFC, are technically a legacy NFL team via their Cleveland Browns roots (this is where things start to get confusing, as the Ravens, who were the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1995 (though the NFL still views them as an expansion team) filling the hole left by the then-Baltimore Colts’ 1984 “dead of night” move to Indianapolis.

Admittedly, the fact that the markets fared well in 2013 was hardly a true test of the Super Bowl Theory since, as it turned out, both teams in Super Bowl XLVII—the Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers—were, technically, NFL legacy teams.

However, consider that in 2012 a team from the old NFL (the New York Giants) took on—and took down—one from the old AFL (the New England Patriots—yes, those New England Patriots… again). And, in fact, 2012 was a pretty good year for stocks.

Steel ‘Curtains’?

On the other hand, the year before that, the Pittsburgh Steelers (representing the American Football Conference) took on the National Football Conference’s Green Bay Packers—two teams that had some of the oldest, deepest and, yes, most “storied” NFL roots, with the Steelers formed in 1933 (as the Pittsburgh Pirates) and the Packers founded in 1919. According to the Super Bowl Theory, 2011 should have been a good year for stocks (because, regardless of who won, a legacy NFL team would prevail).

But as some may recall, while the Dow gained ground for the year, the S&P 500 was, well, flat (dare we say “deflated”?).

And then there was the string of Super Bowls where the contests were all between legacy NFL teams (thus, no matter who won, the markets should have risen):

• 2006, when the Steelers bested the Seattle Seahawks;
• 2007, when the Indianapolis Colts (those old Baltimore Colts) beat the Chicago Bears 29-17;
• 2009, when the Pittsburgh Steelers took on the Arizona Cardinals (who had once been the NFL’s St. Louis Cardinals); and
• 2010, when the New Orleans Saints bested the Indianapolis Colts, who, as we’ve already remarked, had roots dating back to the NFL legacy Baltimore Colts.

Sure enough, the markets were higher in each of those years.

As for 2008? Well, that was the year that the NFC’s New York Giants upended the hopes of the AFL-legacy Patriots (yes, those Patriots) for a perfect season, but it didn’t do any favors for the stock market. In fact, that was the last time that the Super Bowl Theory didn’t “work” (well, until the year before last—oh, and the year before that—and the year before…).

Patriot Gains

Times were better for Patriots fans in 2005, when they bested the NFC’s Philadelphia Eagles 24-21 (yep, those Eagles). Indeed, according to the Super Bowl Theory, the markets should have been down that year—but the S&P 500 rose 2.55%.

Of course, Super Bowl Theory proponents would tell you that the 2002 win by the New England Patriots accurately foretold the continuation of the bear market into a third year (at the time, the first accurate result in five years). But the Patriots’ 2004 Super Bowl win against the Carolina Panthers (the one that probably nobody except Patriots fans and disappointed Panthers advocates remember because it was overshadowed by the infamous “wardrobe malfunction”) failed to anticipate a fall rally that helped push the S&P 500 to a near 9% gain that year, sacking the indicator for another loss (couldn’t resist).

Bronco ‘Busters’

Consider also that, despite victories by the AFL-legacy Denver Broncos in 1998 and 1999, the S&P 500 continued its winning ways, while victories by the NFL-legacy St. Louis (by way of Los Angeles) Rams (that have since returned to the City of Angels) and the Baltimore Ravens (those former “Browns”) did nothing to dispel the bear markets of 2000 and 2001, respectively.

In fact, the Super Bowl Theory “worked” 28 times between 1967 and 1997, then went 0-4 between 1998 and 2001, only to get back on track from 2002 on (though “purists” still dispute how to interpret Tampa Bay’s 2003 victory, since the Buccaneers spent their first NFL season in the AFC before moving to the NFC).

Indeed, the Buccaneers’ move to the NFC was part of a swap with the Seattle Seahawks, who did, in fact, enter the NFL as an NFC team in 1976 but shuttled quickly over to the AFC (where they remained through 2001) before returning to the NFC.[2] And, not having entered the league until 1976, regardless of when they began, can the Seahawks truly be considered a “legacy” NFL squad?

Bear in mind as well, that in 2006, when the Seahawks made their first Super Bowl appearance—and lost—the S&P 500 gained nearly 16%.

As noted above, the Eagles have played in three Super Bowls—but only won once—defeating Tom Brady and the New England Patriots 41-33 in Super Bowl LII in 2017 (they previously lost to the Oakland Raiders in Super Bowl XV and to the Patriots in Super Bowl XXXIX). But those outcomes haven’t really lined up with what the Super Bowl Theory suggests. 

As for the Chiefs, they’ve been there before—four times—but with long stretches in between and mixed results. They were in the very first (though back then it was called the AFL-NFL World Championship Game), losing to the Green Bay Packers, but made it back to Super Bowl IV, where they beat the Minnesota Vikings (the first of the four Super Bowls that team would lose). And then, it was a long 50-year stretch between then and 2020 when they bested the 49ers 31-20—only to come back the next year (2021)—and lose to Tom Brady and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in Super Bowl LV. Again, a mixed contribution to the SB Theory.

The Eagles are the designated “home” team—and given that the game is taking place in an NFC Stadium, so this doesn’t come as a surprise. That said, they’re going to be wearing their home green jerseys—and the Chiefs will be wearing white—and the team wearing white jerseys in the Super Bowl has won 15 of the last 18 Super Bowls (though the last time Kansas City won they were wearing red).

One more thing to watch for those of you into such things; the winner of the coin toss has lost the Super Bowl eight straight years. In fact, the last team to win the coin toss and win the game—was the Seahawks against the Broncos in Super Bowl XLVIII. Yeah, it’s been a while.

Finally—if you’re feeling like the Super Bowl is later and later, you’re not imagining things. In fact, this year’s contest is the SECOND latest ever. The latest? Last year’s contest between the Rams and the Bengals.

All in all, and particularly in view of the exciting playoff games that have led up to it, it looks like it should be a good game.

And that—whether you are a proponent of the Super Bowl Theory or not—would be one in which regardless of which team wins, we all do!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[1] An alternate theory linking the Super Bowl to stock market performance in reverse fashion postulates that Wall Street’s results can be used to predict the outcome of the game. According to this theory, if the Dow rises from the end of November until Super Bowl game day, the team whose full name appears later in the alphabet will win. Some people have too much time on their hands….

[2] Note: Seattle is the only team to have played in both the AFC and NFC Championship Games, having relocated from the AFC to the NFC during league realignment prior to the 2002 season. The Seahawks are the only NFL team to switch conferences twice in the post-merger era. The franchise began play in 1976 in the NFC West division but switched conferences with the Buccaneers after one season and joined the AFC West.

Your Retirement Might Have a Stake in the Super Bowl’s Outcome…

 Will your 401(k) be bitten by the Bengals—or rally with the Rams?

That’s what adherents of the so-called Super Bowl Indicator[i] would likely conclude, after all. It’s a “theory” that when a team from the old National Football League wins the Super Bowl, the S&P 500 will rise, and when a team from the old American Football League prevails, stock prices will fall.

It’s a “theory” that has been found to be correct nearly 80% of the time—for 41 of the 55 Super Bowls, in fact. And sure enough, last year’s win by the NFC’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers provided support for that notion, as the S&P 500 gained ground.  

Not that it hasn’t had its shortcomings. One need look back no further than the previous year’s win by the AFC’s (and original AFL) Kansas City Chiefs over the then-NFC Champion San Francisco 49ers to refute the applicability (or did your 401(k) miss that 18.4% rise in the S&P 500?). Or how about the year before that when the AFC’s New England Patriots (who once upon a time were the AFL’s Boston Patriots) bested the NFC champion Los Angeles Rams (who, of course, are making another run at it this year)—when the S&P 500 was up more than 30% in 2019.

Or, looking the other way, the year before that a win by the NFC champion Philadelphia Eagles against the AFC Champion Patriots turned out to be a loser, marketwise, with the S&P 500 down more than 6% (though for most of the year it was quite a different story). Ditto the year before, when the epic comeback by those same AFC Champion Patriots against the then-NFC champion Atlanta Falcons failed to forestall a 2017 market surge. 

Now, one might think that the real “spoiler” to this market “theory” is the New England Patriots—but the year before that, the AFC’s (and original AFL) Broncos’ 24-10 victory over the Carolina Panthers, who represented the NFC, also proved to be an “exception.”

Market Makings

You might well wonder why, in view of that consistent string of “exceptions” that we’re still talking about this “theory”—but, as it turns out, that’s an unusual (albeit consistent) break in the streak that was sustained in 2015 following Super Bowl XLIX, when the AFC’s New England Patriots (yes, they show up a lot) bested the Seattle Seahawks 28-24 to earn their fourth Super Bowl title. 

It also “worked” in 2014, when the Seahawks bumped off the legacy AFL Denver Broncos, and in 2013, when a dramatic fourth-quarter comeback rescued a victory by the Baltimore Ravens—who, though representing the AFC, are technically a legacy NFL team via their Cleveland Browns roots (this is where things start to get confusing, as the Ravens, who were the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1995 (though the NFL still views them as an expansion team) filling the hole left by the then-Baltimore Colts’ 1984 “dead of night” move to Indianapolis. 

Admittedly, the fact that the markets fared well in 2013 was hardly a true test of the Super Bowl Theory since, as it turned out, both teams in Super Bowl XLVII—the Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers—were NFL legacy teams.

However, consider that in 2012 a team from the old NFL (the New York Giants) took on—and took down—one from the old AFL (the New England Patriots—yes, those New England Patriots… again). And, in fact, 2012 was a pretty good year for stocks.

Steel ‘Curtains’?

On the other hand, the year before that, the Pittsburgh Steelers (representing the American Football Conference) took on the National Football Conference’s Green Bay Packers—two teams that had some of the oldest, deepest and, yes, most “storied” NFL roots, with the Steelers formed in 1933 (as the Pittsburgh Pirates) and the Packers founded in 1919. According to the Super Bowl Theory, 2011 should have been a good year for stocks (because, regardless of who won, a legacy NFL team would prevail). 

But as some may recall, while the Dow gained ground for the year, the S&P 500 was, well, flat (dare we say “deflated”?).

And then there was the string of Super Bowls where the contests were all between legacy NFL teams (thus, no matter who won, the markets should have risen):

• 2006, when the Steelers bested the Seattle Seahawks;
• 2007, when the Indianapolis Colts (those old Baltimore Colts) beat the Chicago Bears 29-17;
• 2009, when the Pittsburgh Steelers took on the Arizona Cardinals (who had once been the NFL’s St. Louis Cardinals); and
• 2010, when the New Orleans Saints bested the Indianapolis Colts, who, as we’ve already remarked, had roots dating back to the NFL legacy Baltimore Colts.

Sure enough, the markets were higher in each of those years.

As for 2008? Well, that was the year that the NFC’s New York Giants upended the hopes of the AFL-legacy Patriots (yes, those Patriots) for a perfect season, but it didn’t do any favors for the stock market. In fact, that was the last time that the Super Bowl Theory didn’t “work” (well, until the year before last—oh, and the year before that—and the year before…).

Patriot Gains

Times were better for Patriots fans in 2005, when they bested the NFC’s Philadelphia Eagles 24-21. Indeed, according to the Super Bowl Theory, the markets should have been down that year—but the S&P 500 rose 2.55%.

Of course, Super Bowl Theory proponents would tell you that the 2002 win by the New England Patriots accurately foretold the continuation of the bear market into a third year (at the time, the first accurate result in five years). But the Patriots’ 2004 Super Bowl win against the Carolina Panthers (the one that probably nobody except Patriots fans and disappointed Panthers advocates remember because it was overshadowed by the infamous “wardrobe malfunction”) failed to anticipate a fall rally that helped push the S&P 500 to a near 9% gain that year, sacking the indicator for another loss (couldn’t resist).

Bronco ‘Busters’

Consider also that, despite victories by the AFL-legacy Denver Broncos in 1998 and 1999, the S&P 500 continued its winning ways, while victories by the NFL-legacy St. Louis (by way of Los Angeles) Rams (that have since returned to the City of Angels) and the Baltimore Ravens (those former “Browns”) did nothing to dispel the bear markets of 2000 and 2001, respectively.

In fact, the Super Bowl Theory “worked” 28 times between 1967 and 1997, then went 0-4 between 1998 and 2001, only to get back on track from 2002 on (though “purists” still dispute how to interpret Tampa Bay’s 2003 victory, since the Buccaneers spent their first NFL season in the AFC before moving to the NFC). 

Indeed, the Buccaneers’ move to the NFC was part of a swap with the Seattle Seahawks, who did, in fact, enter the NFL as an NFC team in 1976 but shuttled quickly over to the AFC (where they remained through 2001) before returning to the NFC.[ii] And, not having entered the league until 1976, regardless of when they began, can the Seahawks truly be considered a “legacy” NFL squad? 

Bear in mind as well, that in 2006, when the Seahawks made their first Super Bowl appearance—and lost—the S&P 500 gained nearly 16%.

As for Sunday’s contest, it’s said to be a contest of underdogs—with oddsmakers thinking this was “supposed” to be a contest between the 49ers and the Titans (though the Rams were an early season favorite, and thus arguably after a bit of a stumble have redeemed themselves). In fact, this is the first time in Super Bowl history that both teams entered the playoffs as (only) No. 4 seeds.

The Bengals have appeared in three Super Bowls (counting this one), having lost the other two—in 1981 and 1988—both to the 49ers (and both by a single score). The Rams, on the other hand, are making their fifth Super Bowl appearance, and their second in the last four years. Their last appearance: in 2018 against the Patriots, in what turned out to be the lowest scoring Super Bowl of all time (13-3). 

Rams coach Sean McVay, who is just 36, is not only looking for his first Super Bowl win, but if he gets it, he’ll be the youngest head coach to ever hoist the Lombardi Trophy (Steelers coach Mike Tomlin currently holds that distinction for winning Super Bowl XLIII at age 36). On the other hand, Bengals coach Zac Taylor is (just) 38—marking the youngest pair of Super Bowl head coaches in the game’s history. 

A final point of potential interest: the Bengals (the designated home team, representing the AFC, even though the game is literally being played on the Rams’ home field) has announced that they will be wearing black jerseys and white pants with orange highlights and matching socks—in tribute to their first Super Bowl appearance (though they lost that game, of course). The Rams will be donning their retro white jersey, yellow sleeves and royal blue socks. That might matter because, dating back to 2005 with the Patriots in Super Bowl XXXIX, the team wearing white jerseys has won 14 of 17 times.[iii]

All in all, and particularly in view of the exciting playoff games that have led up to it, it looks like it should be a good game. 

And that—whether you are a proponent of the Super Bowl Theory or not—would be one in which regardless of which team wins, we all do!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] An alternate theory linking the Super Bowl to stock market performance in reverse fashion postulates that Wall Street’s results can be used to predict the outcome of the game. According to this theory, if the Dow rises from the end of November until Super Bowl game day, the team whose full name appears later in the alphabet will win.

[ii] Note: Seattle is the only team to have played in both the AFC and NFC Championship Games, having relocated from the AFC to the NFC during league realignment prior to the 2002 season. The Seahawks are the only NFL team to switch conferences twice in the post-merger era. The franchise began play in 1976 in the NFC West division but switched conferences with the Buccaneers after one season and joined the AFC West.

[iii] Only the Packers in 2010, Eagles in 2017 and Chiefs in 2020 went against this trend.