Finance
“Buying stocks in November and selling in June has worked surprisingly well in several past election cycles. Market analyst Jesse Cohen shared historical S&P 500 returns showing how this strategy performed after US midterm elections. November has also been one of the stronger months for US stocks historically, while September has often…”
Plain restatementThree propositions. (1) Holding the S&P 500 from November of a US midterm election year through the following June has produced positive returns in most or all past midterm cycles. (2) An analyst named Jesse Cohen published historical S&P 500 return data showing this. (3) In the historical monthly record, November is among the highest-average-return months for US stocks and September among the lowest.
General information only - not financial advice.
This post is mostly accurate on the facts, with important details left out. The seasonal patterns it describes are real and documented by several independent research firms: as of 2 November 2026, the S&P 500 has averaged roughly 15.5% from midterm Election Day through the following 30 June going back to 1950, and the November-to-April stretch after a midterm has been positive in all 19 cases since 1950. November really has been the strongest average month for the S&P 500 and September the weakest, across tables computed from 1950 and from 1994. What the post leaves out matters: it gives no time period, no sample size, and no mention that these are gross index returns before trading costs, taxes and inflation, and it never compares the strategy to simply staying invested the whole year. The sample is also small, around 19 to 21 midterm cycles, and the strong months overlap with the general November-to-April seasonal pattern that shows up in non-election years too, so the election-specific effect is not isolated. The attribution to analyst Jesse Cohen could not be verified: he is a real market analyst who covers the S&P 500 and the midterms, but no post or chart matching the description was located, and a similar figure circulating this week traces back through crypto news aggregators to a social media commentator with no dataset behind it. Whether any of this repeats after the 3 November 2026 midterms is unknowable today. General information only, not financial advice.
[drifted from the evidence:] Buying stocks in November [drifted from the evidence:] and selling in June has [drifted from the evidence:] worked surprisingly well in [drifted from the evidence:] several past [drifted from the evidence:] election cycles. [drifted from the evidence:] Market analyst Jesse Cohen [drifted from the evidence:] shared historical S&P 500 [drifted from the evidence:] returns showing [drifted from the evidence:] how this [drifted from the evidence:] strategy performed after US midterm elections. November [drifted from the evidence:] has also been one of the [drifted from the evidence:] stronger months for US stocks [drifted from the evidence:] historically, while September [drifted from the evidence:] has often been the weakest. The idea is to take advantage of seasonal market patterns, although past returns don't guarantee the [drifted from the evidence:] same results every time. Follow @daytrading for daily updates on crypto, stocks, tech, and business.
[added by the neutral restatement:] Three propositions. (1) Holding the S&P 500 from November [added by the neutral restatement:] of a US midterm election year through the following June has [added by the neutral restatement:] produced positive returns in [added by the neutral restatement:] most or all past [added by the neutral restatement:] midterm cycles. [added by the neutral restatement:] (2) An analyst [added by the neutral restatement:] named Jesse Cohen [added by the neutral restatement:] published historical S&P 500 [added by the neutral restatement:] return data showing this. [added by the neutral restatement:] (3) In the historical monthly record, November [added by the neutral restatement:] is among the [added by the neutral restatement:] highest-average-return months for US stocks [added by the neutral restatement:] and September [added by the neutral restatement:] among the [added by the neutral restatement:] lowest.
Red-tinted words in the claim drifted from the evidence. Green-tinted words are what a neutral restatement needs.
The trace / claim to source
- A positive post-midterm seasonal pattern in US large-cap equities is genuinely documented by several independent research providers, not invented. The November-April stretch after a midterm has risen 19 straight times since 1950 per the Stock Trader's Almanac, and MarketWatch put the Election Day to June 30 average at 15.5% going back to 1950.
- The specific November-to-June window the claim names is close to, though not identical with, windows that research firms actually publish. The Stock Trader's Almanac's version runs midterm Q4 through pre-election Q2 and averages 20.2% for the S&P 500.
- November being the strongest average month and September the weakest holds across multiple independently computed tables and multiple start dates. Over 1950 to September 2026, November averaged +1.86% and September -0.62%, with September the only month carrying a negative median. Over 1994 to 2026 the same two months occupy the same positions.
- The caveat in the post, that past returns do not guarantee future results, is accurate and is not undercut by anything in the record.
- Jesse Cohen is a real market analyst who publishes on the S&P 500 and who has written about the US midterms. His Investing.com analysis covers the S&P 500 and the Dow and references US midterm elections.
- The claim states a strategy result with no period, no sample size, no dividend basis, and no inflation basis. The retrieved evidence spans start dates from 1874 to 1994 depending on which statistic you take, and the answers differ. A reader cannot tell whether "several past election cycles" means 9, 19, 21, or 38 observations, and the honest sample for a November-of-midterm-year rule is roughly 19 to 21 cycles, which is small.
- Every retrieved figure is a gross index return. The claim describes an active in-and-out strategy that sells every June and rebuys every November, which incurs spreads, commissions where applicable, and realised capital-gains tax events that index figures exclude. No retrieved source nets these out.
- All figures located are nominal. A 15.5% nominal nine-month average over a period that includes the 1970s and early 1980s reads very differently after inflation, and no inflation-adjusted version of this statistic was found.
- Omitted qualifier (no benchmark): the pattern is presented as if the gain is the payoff for following it. None of the retrieved sources compares November-to-June to simply staying invested all twelve months, which is the comparison that determines whether the strategy adds anything. A strategy that is out of the market July to October captures gains in that stretch only by forgoing them.
- The headline figures are averages. The one source that reports both notes the distribution is wide: November alone has ranged from a 10.8% gain to an 11.4% loss. An average is not the typical experience when the spread is that large.
- Misattribution (unverified attribution): the post credits a specific named analyst with specific data but supplies no link, date, numbers, or screenshot, and I could not locate the artifact. Separately, the "21 cycles, 16.6%" version of this statistic now circulating traces through crypto aggregators to a social-media commentator and is described as derived from "on-chain data", which is not a coherent provenance for an S&P 500 return series. If the referenced chart is that figure, the claim rests on a chain with no retrievable dataset behind it.
- Omitted qualifier (confounded effect): the midterm window overlaps almost entirely with the general November-April seasonal strength that Yale Hirsch identified in 1986. The post presents the election cycle as the driver without noting that the same months are the strong months in non-election years too, so the election-specific contribution is not isolated by anything cited.
- Whether Jesse Cohen published the specific November-to-June midterm return table attributed to him, on what date, and with what numbers. The person and beat check out; the artifact does not.
- The exact provenance of the "21 cycles, positive every time, 16.6% average" figure. No underlying dataset, calculation method, or dividend basis was located behind it, and the aggregator attribution is to a social-media commentator rather than a research provider.
- Whether the November-to-June window outperforms a continuously invested position after costs and taxes. No retrieved source tests this.
- Whether the pattern has any predictive value for the cycle beginning with the November 3, 2026 midterms. That is a forward-looking question with no resolvable evidence today, and the base rate here rests on roughly 19 to 21 overlapping historical observations.
- Whether the monthly seasonality figures are price returns or total returns in most of the tables cited. Only one source specified total return.
The midterm-to-following-spring pattern is a real, widely documented seasonal regularity in the US equity record, and several independent research shops describe it with overlapping but non-identical windows and sample periods. On the window closest to the claim: MarketWatch reported that the S&P 500 has delivered an average return of 15.5% in the nine months between Election Day and June 30, going back to 1950. On the adjacent and more commonly cited window: in midterm election years since 1950, October and November have been the S&P 500's two best months according to the Stock Trader's Almanac, and the November-April stretch after a midterm has risen 19 straight times since 1950. On the three-quarter version: the midterm-year Q4 kicks off the "Sweet Spot" of the four-year cycle, and midterm Q4 through pre-election Q2 has been the best three consecutive quarter span, averaging 19.3% for the DJIA, 20.2% for the S&P 500 and 29.4% for the NASDAQ. Wider post-midterm (12-month) framings also exist and are directionally consistent: since 1930, the S&P 500 or its predecessors have risen an average of 14% in the year after all midterm elections, according to Ned Davis Research's Ed Clissold and Thanh Nguyen; since 1874, the S&P 500 has climbed in the year following 32 of the last 38 midterm elections, gaining an average of 14%, according to a Motley Fool analysis; and every midterm election year since 1946 has been followed by positive one-year stock returns, per Truist chief strategist Keith Lerner. A narrower event-window study: Dimitri Speck of Seasonax examined 23 midterms since 1934 and found that from five trading days before the vote to two days after, the S&P 500 rose in 22 of 23 cases with an average gain of 2.74%, the only miss being 1994. On monthly seasonality, multiple independently computed tables agree on the ordering: from January 1950 to September 2026, November has been the best month for the S&P 500, averaging +1.86% and closing higher in 69.7% of years, while September is the worst, averaging -0.62%, the only month with a negative median, and finishing higher in only 34 of 77 years. A separate table covering 1950 to 2025 also places November as the best month on average and September as the worst. A third calculator covering 1994 to 2026 puts November best at +2.6% average and September worst at -0.5%. The same monthly source adds a dispersion caveat: the gap between the best and worst months is about 2.5 percentage points on average, and November alone has ranged from a 10.8% gain to an 11.4% loss. On the attribution: Jesse Cohen is a real, currently publishing market analyst whose work covers exactly this territory. An Investing.com market analysis by Jesse Cohen covering the S&P 500, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and related ETFs references US midterm elections among the week's drivers. I found no post, chart, or dated record from him containing the specific November-to-June midterm return table the claim describes. On the specific "21 cycles, 16.6%" figure circulating this week: the claim is that the S&P 500 gained in each of 21 historical periods running from November of a midterm election year through the following June, averaging a 16.6% increase. That figure's chain traces to aggregator flashes attributing it to a social-media commentator: the item states that on-chain data shows the S&P 500 averaged a 16.6% gain over the 21 cycles following US midterm elections, and attributes the questioning of the trend to "Serenity, known as the 'White Hair Stock God,'" with the 2026 midterms scheduled for November 3. "On-chain data" is not a coherent sourcing description for an S&P 500 statistic, and no underlying dataset is cited.
Complete reasoning
The reply is formatted for pasting into the thread where the claim is circulating.
Ask this case
Answers come only from the case file above; nothing is added.
Is it true that buying in November and selling in June has worked in past midterm years?
Yes, this type of pattern is documented by several independent research firms. For example, the S&P 500 has averaged about 15.5% from midterm Election Day through the following June 30 going back to 1950, and a similar November-April window has been positive in all 19 cases since 1950.
Did market analyst Jesse Cohen actually publish this historical data?
Jesse Cohen is a real market analyst who covers the S&P 500 and has written about US midterm elections. However, the investigation found no post or chart from him matching the specific November-to-June midterm return table described in the claim.
Is November really the best month for stocks and September the worst?
Yes, multiple independently computed tables covering different time periods, including 1950 to 2026 and 1994 to 2026, show November with the highest average returns and September with the lowest, the only month with a negative median return.
Does this mean the strategy will work again after the 2026 midterms?
The case file states this is unknowable. The pattern is based on a small sample of roughly 19 to 21 past midterm cycles, and the seasonal effect overlaps with a broader November-to-April pattern that also shows up in non-election years, so the election-specific effect is not isolated.
What about the specific figure of 21 cycles averaging 16.6% gains that is circulating online?
That figure traces back through news aggregators to a social media commentator, with the source described only as 'on-chain data,' which is not a coherent way to source an S&P 500 statistic. No underlying dataset was found to support it.