Backtest: Buy XOM at the close when its 5-day total return underperforms SPY's by more...
A five-day stretch where XOM trails SPY by more than two percentage points reads like a relative-value washout. Step in, hold for the bounce, and exit when the stock shows three-day strength against the market. The setup is clean and the thesis is familiar — but the numbers tell a more complicated story.
Across 61 closed trades on $100,000 starting capital, the strategy returned 6.66% with a 54% win rate. SPY buy-and-hold gained 68.30% over the same window, leaving the strategy trailing the benchmark by 61.65 points. Even the trade-level asymmetry — best +4.94%, worst -5.75% — did not rescue the edge.
The full evidence is below.
Buy XOM at the close when its 5-day total return underperforms SPY's by more than 2 percentage points; exit when XOM's 3-day total return outperforms SPY's by at least 1 percentage point or after 5 trading days, whichever comes first. Supermajor underperformance versus the broad market on oil-shock selling is a relative-value washout that tends to snap back when energy flows rotate back into the group.
How this was measured
This is a simulated backtest generated from the plain-English strategy below, executed bar-by-bar on historical market data using the price + news data mode with $100,000 starting capital. Strategy: Buy XOM at the close when its 5-day total return underperforms SPY's by more than 2 percentage points; exit when XOM's 3-day total return outperforms SPY's by at least 1 percentage point or after 5 trading days, whichever comes first. Supermajor underperformance versus the broad market on oil-shock selling is a relative-value washout that tends to snap back when energy flows rotate back into the group.
The key numbers
The charts
The takeaway
The strategy returned +6.66% on $100,000 starting capital across 61 closed trades with a 54% win rate. Over the same window SPY buy-and-hold returned +68.30%, so the strategy finished trailing the benchmark by 61.65 points. Best single trade +4.94%, worst -5.75%.
The fine print
- Simulated results on historical data — fills, slippage and costs are idealized.
- Past performance does not predict future results.