Hayseed, Here is another study for you. I looked at the yearly performance (% change) of the SP500 from 1930 (Start of SP500) through 2004 for the presidential years. The presidential years are defined as the last two years of the presidential term. First we need to look at the performance for all years. There are 75 years of data and of those 25 were negative which means 66.7% of the years were positive. The average yearly percent change was 7.69%. This is the yardstick we need to measure the performance of the presidential cycle. There are 37 non-presidential years (The first 2 years of the presidential term) and of those 18 were negative which means 51.4% of the years were positive. The average yearly percent change was 4.28%. As you can see the odds of the year being positive is around 50%. In other words a coin flip with no statistical advantage and the percent change was less than the yardstick. There are 38 presidential years (The last 2 years of the presidential term – 2003 and 2004 are the most recent presidential years) and of those 7 were negative which means 81.6% of the years were positive. The average yearly percent change was 11.01%. As you can see the odds of the year being positive and the percent change are both much better than the yardstick. It’s clear that there is a positive statistical bias in the presidential years. SP500 in the year 2003 return 26.38% and in the year 2004 returned 8.99%. Just a note, this year 2005 in a non-presidential year; however, a year that ends in a 5 has never been negative at least from 1900. I check the years before 1930 using the Dow as the index. With that said, this year could be the first time. :cry: