The S&P 500 closed May 2026 at a new all-time high, gaining 5.3% in a single month and making fools of anyone who followed the old “Sell in May and go away” playbook. The rally continued a sharp rebound from March’s near-correction, driven by fears over the Iran conflict and spiking oil prices. For equity bulls, the month was a vindication. For metals investors watching from the other side of the table, the celebration deserves a closer look.

Seasonal market adages like “Sell in May” have a terrible track record as timing tools, and the data proves it. But the fact that stocks keep setting records on the back of geopolitical relief rallies and sentiment swings does not mean risk has disappeared. For gold holders, the real question is not whether equities had a good month, but whether the conditions that drove safe-haven demand have actually resolved.

As Fisher Investments’ editorial staff noted, the S&P 500 rose 5.3% from April 30 to May 29, 2026, blowing past May’s long-run average total return of just 0.4% since 1926. The staff called seasonal myths “as useless as ever” and described the entire “Sell in May” concept as “all quite silly.”

That is a fair assessment of the adage itself. The numbers back it up. But the framing tells you more about equity-market sentiment than it does about risk.

The Adage and Its Track Record

The “Sell in May” idea traces back to the days when all trading happened in person on exchange floors in large cities. Wealthy traders would leave for the countryside in summer, and the advice was to sell before departing and return around September, historically timed to Britain’s St Leger Stakes horserace. Over time, data miners turned this into a rule: sell on April 30, buy back on Halloween.

Related Posts
Ultra-rich investors cut stocks and build cash reserves

The historical record does not support it as a reliable strategy. Returns in the April 30 to October 31 window have been positive in 73 of the 100 years since 1926. That is a 73% hit rate. The stretch is the weakest rolling six-month period on the calendar, averaging 4.5%, but no six-month window averages a negative return. Selling in May 2025 alone would have meant missing a 6.3% gain, and over the full “Sell in May” window last year, the S&P 500 surged 23.6%.

Fisher’s staff was blunt about the takeaway:

“So don’t get suckered into gimmicks aimed at avoiding short-term volatility, be they seasonal or otherwise.”

Hard to argue with that on its own terms. Timing the market with a calendar is not a strategy. It is a superstition dressed in a spreadsheet.

What the Rally Is Actually Built On

The more interesting question for metals investors is not whether May was positive, but what drove it. Fisher’s own language is revealing. The editorial staff described May’s gains as a continuation of “their sharp rebound from March’s near-correction over the Iran war and associated high oil fears.” The 2025 rally, meanwhile, followed what they called the “Liberation Day panic” in early April of that year.

In both cases, stocks recovered not because the underlying risks resolved permanently, but because fear receded. That is how equity markets work in a sentiment-driven cycle. Risk flares, prices drop, fear peaks, and then the rebound rewards those who stayed in. The pattern rewards equity holders over short windows. It does not tell you anything about whether the risks that caused the fear have been structurally addressed.

A near-correction tied to a war and oil-price fears is not the same as a garden-variety pullback. The fact that stocks bounced back quickly says something about liquidity conditions, about the reflexive bid under equities in a system conditioned to buy every dip. It does not say the geopolitical backdrop has improved. It does not say oil supply is secure. It does not say the fiscal trajectory has changed.

For readers who have followed the valuation warnings flashing in U.S. equities, the speed of the rebound may actually be the concern, not the comfort.

Record Highs and Narrow Markets

Fisher’s piece focuses on the headline index. The S&P 500 hit a new record. That is a fact. But headline indexes can mask fragility underneath. A market that sets records on the strength of a handful of mega-cap names while broader participation weakens is a different animal than one where gains are spread wide.

The article does not address breadth. It does not need to, because its thesis is narrow: seasonal timing is bad. That thesis is correct. But metals investors reading the same data should ask a different question. Is the equity market’s strength broad or concentrated?

Recent analysis has shown that S&P 500 breadth has signaled fragility even as the index itself pushes higher. That pattern matters because narrow rallies tend to be late-cycle phenomena. They can persist for months or even years, but they represent a different risk profile than broad-based advances.

Sentiment as a Double-Edged Input

Fisher’s editorial staff noted that sentiment toward U.S. stocks could shift, with international markets in developed Europe and Asia potentially leading. That observation is worth pausing on. If the firm’s own analysts see a world where U.S. equity leadership may rotate, the “just stay invested” message carries an asterisk. Staying invested in what?

The staff acknowledged the current “Sell in May” window is not concluded and that “nothing says it will be assuredly positive, despite the strong start.” That is an honest caveat. It is also the kind of caveat that tends to get lost when the headline is a record high.

Gold investors have seen this movie before. Equity markets rally on relief, sentiment improves, and the narrative shifts to “all clear.” Then the next shock arrives, and the same people who dismissed hedges scramble for them. The pattern described in coverage of late-1990s-style melt-ups is instructive here. Late-cycle strength in equities and strength in gold are not mutually exclusive. They can coexist when the underlying driver is liquidity and policy accommodation rather than organic economic health.

What This Means for Gold and Hard Assets

The “Sell in May” debate is an equity-market conversation. But it intersects with the metals thesis at several points.

First, the geopolitical risks that caused March’s near-correction have not vanished. The Iran conflict and oil fears were real enough to knock stocks down sharply. A quick recovery does not erase the structural exposure. Gold’s role as portfolio insurance is most visible precisely when those risks are flaring, but its value as insurance depends on holding it before the fire, not after.

Second, the speed and magnitude of equity rebounds in this cycle tell you something about the policy environment. Markets that recover this fast from war-driven selloffs are markets with a strong implicit backstop, whether from central bank liquidity, fiscal spending, or both. That same backstop is part of what drives long-term demand for gold. The more aggressively policymakers intervene to smooth volatility, the more they compress risk premiums in financial assets and the more they erode the purchasing power of the currency over time.

Third, record equity highs tend to suppress gold demand at the margin. When stocks are climbing, the opportunity cost of holding a non-yielding asset feels higher. That is a short-term headwind for bullion. But it is also a setup. The readers who matter most to this publication are not chasing monthly returns. They are managing multi-year exposure to a system where fiscal deficits keep growing, where debt burdens keep compounding, and where the policy response to every crisis is more intervention.

High-profile warnings about equity market tops, including from investors like Michael Burry, may or may not prove timely. Timing is hard. But the structural case for holding hard assets alongside equities does not depend on timing. It depends on recognizing that the same system producing record stock prices is also producing the fiscal and monetary conditions that support gold over longer horizons.

The Real Lesson of May 2026

Fisher’s piece lands a clean point: do not sell stocks based on a calendar date. That advice is sound. Seasonal timing is not a strategy. It is a parlor trick that works just often enough to stay alive in financial folklore.

But the broader lesson is not “stay fully invested in equities and ignore everything else.” The lesson is that short-term returns tell you very little about long-term risk. A 5.3% month is a data point, not a verdict. A record high is a price, not a promise.

For investors whose primary concern is capital preservation across a full cycle, the question is never whether stocks had a good May. The question is whether the conditions that make hard assets worth holding have changed. War fears, oil shocks, fiscal excess, and policy intervention are not seasonal. They do not go away when the S&P 500 hits a new number.

Even bearish positioning in corners of the market, such as the put-heavy options activity in small caps, suggests that not everyone is buying the all-clear signal. The market is not a monolith. Different participants are seeing different risks.

The “Sell in May” crowd got it wrong again. That does not mean the people holding gold got it wrong, too. Those are two different questions with two different time horizons, and confusing them is a more expensive mistake than any seasonal adage could ever produce.

Record highs are not the same as safety. The calendar is not a risk model. And the best insurance is the kind you own before you need it.