How US sectors performed when liquidity was ample
Since 2 Jan 1985, the record reads this regime on 11.4% of trading days, across 11 episodes with a typical run of 37 sessions. Across those sessions since 22 Dec 1998, Financials did best at +19.7% a year and Consumer Staples did worst at +10.9%, against +16.2% for the S&P 500.
Figures as of 6 Nov 2026 · recomputed every trading day
The regime in the record
Sector by sector
Annualised mean return on the session after each regime day. Sorted by the regime figure.
| Asset | In this regime | All days | vs S&P 500 | Up sessions | Volatility | Sessions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financials XLF | +19.7% | +7.9% | +3.5% | 55% | 18.4% | 1,201 |
| Consumer Discretionary XLY | +19.6% | +10.6% | +3.4% | 55% | 17.9% | 1,201 |
| Health Care XLV | +18.1% | +8.8% | +1.9% | 53% | 14.1% | 1,201 |
| Information Technology XLK | +17.4% | +11.8% | +1.2% | 55% | 20.1% | 1,201 |
| Communication Services XLCsince 2018 | +17.2% | +11.3% | -1.6% | 56% | 18.9% | 792 |
| Industrials XLI | +15.8% | +9.2% | -0.4% | 54% | 16.6% | 1,201 |
| Utilities XLU | +15.3% | +5.7% | -1% | 53% | 15.7% | 1,201 |
| Real Estate XLREsince 2015 | +14.8% | +5.5% | -4% | 54% | 18.2% | 792 |
| Energy XLE | +14.2% | +10.1% | -2% | 52% | 27.1% | 1,201 |
| Materials XLB | +14.2% | +8.6% | -2% | 54% | 17.3% | 1,201 |
| Consumer Staples XLP | +10.9% | +5.6% | -5.3% | 53% | 11.8% | 1,201 |
Context
| Asset | In this regime | All days | vs S&P 500 | Up sessions | Volatility | Sessions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S&P 500 SPY | +16.2% | +10.1% | — | 56% | 13.9% | 1,201 |
| Nasdaq 100 QQQsince 1999 | +18.8% | +12.9% | +2.6% | 58% | 18.6% | 1,201 |
| Russell 2000 IWMsince 2000 | +17.2% | +9.6% | +1% | 53% | 20.6% | 1,201 |
| Long Treasuries TLTsince 2002 | -1.8% | +1% | -18% | 51% | 13.5% | 1,201 |
| Gold GLDsince 2004 | +6.4% | +11.4% | -9.8% | 52% | 15.2% | 1,201 |
How this regime is defined
Market liquidity reads Ample in the daily regime record.
Method and limits
Descriptive statistics over the published regime record — not a backtest, a forecast or advice. Each regime day is credited with the NEXT session's return, so a regime never earns the move that revealed it. Returns are ETF price returns (dividends excluded), annualised as 252 × the mean session return; volatility likewise. Sector funds start in December 1998 (Real Estate in 2015, Communication Services in 2018); the regime record starts in 1980. Labels are the engine's as currently published and are recomputed when its method improves. A figure with fewer than 60 sessions is not shown.
This page's data as JSONQuestions
- Which sectors did best when liquidity was ample?
- Financials +19.7%, Consumer Discretionary +19.6%, Health Care +18.1%. Annualised mean next-session returns since 22 Dec 1998; the S&P 500 returned +16.2%.
- How common is this regime, and how long does it last?
- It appears on 11.4% of trading days since 1985, in 11 separate episodes. The typical run is 37 sessions; the longest lasted 456 sessions.
- Is this regime in force today?
- Yes — in force since 17 Sep 2026. The daily nine-axis reading is on the Regime Radar.
- Is this a backtest?
- No. It describes how assets behaved on the session after each day the regime was read, with no portfolio, costs or selection. A backtest would test a rule; this records a history.