STOCKS · 30 YEARS · PUBLISHED 28 JUL 2026

Every famous stock timing rule vs. buy-and-hold

Four rules that get repeated endlessly in trading forums, books, and YouTube thumbnails. Thirty years of dividend-adjusted S&P 500 data. Every one of them lost to doing nothing.

The claims we tested

Each of these is stated as settled wisdom somewhere on the internet right now: “Never hold below the 200-day.” “The golden cross is the most reliable signal in markets.” “Sell in May and go away.” “Buy when RSI is oversold.” They are all testable, and almost nobody publishes the test.

Method

SPY daily closes from 1996 to 2026 (7,547 trading days, 30.0 years), adjusted for dividends so the buy-and-hold benchmark is honest — comparing a timing strategy against a price-only benchmark quietly hands the strategy several points a year. Each rule is fully invested or fully in cash, charged 0.05% per switch. Every signal is computed from data available at the previous close, then the next day's return is applied.

That last sentence is the whole ballgame. Our first run let each rule read the same day's closing price and then collect that day's move — and it reported the 200-day rule earning 18.6% a year. Fixing that one index dropped it to 7.18%. We wrote up exactly how that happened →

Results

StrategyTotalCAGRWorst DDIn marketSwitches
Buy & hold S&P 500 (SPY)1,854%10.42%−55.2%100%0
200-day MA timing700%7.18%−27.7%74%187
Golden cross (50/200)1,019%8.38%−33.7%73%29
“Sell in May” (Nov–Apr only)611%6.76%−36.7%49%60
Buy the dip (RSI<30, hold 20d)305%4.77%−42.3%25%96

Source: Yahoo Finance adjusted closes. Costs 0.05% per switch. No leverage, no shorting.

What the numbers actually say

Buy-and-hold won on return, by a lot. Thirty years of doing nothing returned 10.42% a year. The best timing rule managed 8.38%. Over three decades that gap compounds into roughly half your final wealth.

But the 200-day rule did do something real: it cut the worst drawdown from −55.2% to −27.7%. It didn't make more money — it made the ride survivable. Whether that trade is worth 3.2 percentage points a year depends entirely on whether you would have actually held through a 55% loss. Most people find out that they wouldn't, at the worst possible moment.

Buying the dip was the worst of all — 4.77% a year, and it still ate a −42% drawdown, because “oversold” keeps getting more oversold in a real bear market.

The pattern, stated plainly: these rules are not return generators. They are insurance policies, and the premium is paid in performance. That is a legitimate thing to buy — but it is not what they are usually sold as.

Why we ran this

We run the same tests on our own crypto trading. When we pointed this engine at seven crypto strategies with real money, all seven lost — and we published that too. The honest finding across both markets is identical: timing rules reduce pain, not increase profit.

Get the next autopsy

We test one strategy people swear by and publish whatever the data says — including when it says the strategy doesn't work. Free, no pitch.

Vorrik Research publishes tests of publicly discussed trading strategies using public market data and our own capital. It is factual reporting of what happened in historical and live tests — not investment advice, and not a recommendation to buy or sell anything. Past results never predict future results.