Did the same June 2026 FOMC pivot move Utilities the way classic rate-sensitivity theory predicts?

Reuses the exact same validated event/date as fed_pivot_tech, swapping the treated unit to XLU. Utilities are the textbook bond-proxy, rate-sensitive sector: this checks whether that theory actually shows up as a real synthetic-control gap, using the other 10 sectors as donors, or whether XLU just moved with the broader market like everything else that week. (Substituted for a literal single-day 'AI-datacenter-power' event test since that theme doesn't have one clean, verifiable catalyst date; this is the more rigorously anchored version of 'is XLU moving for a distinct reason.')

Actual vs. synthetic counterfactual

Actual Synthetic (counterfactual)

Fit quality

Fit-window RMSE3.8214

RMSE ÷ fit-window std dev0.40×

Fit-window days417

Confound-window mean gap+7.05

Post-period mean gap-3.03

Placebo test: same method run on every unit, treated one highlighted

Unit	Mean post-period gap	Max abs. gap
XLK	+20.40%	31.56%
XLE	+12.17%	30.73%
XLF	+11.13%	15.41%
XLI	+11.07%	17.86%
XLY	-10.15%	17.04%
XLP	-6.30%	8.49%
XLU (treated)	-6.07%	15.69%
XLB	-6.04%	13.14%
XLC	-6.03%	12.41%
XLV	-0.87%	11.72%
XLRE	-0.09%	3.71%

Verdict

XLU's post-period gap ranks #7 of 11 units by absolute size in the placebo test (larger rank = more likely a real, unit-specific effect rather than noise the method would produce for any random unit).

Caution: the confound-window gap (+7.05) is already a substantial fraction of the post-period gap (-3.03); this divergence looks like it was emerging before the treatment date, so the treatment can't cleanly take full credit for the post-period gap.

Read: this does NOT look like a clearly unit-specific effect; other units in the placebo test show gaps of similar or larger size, so this could just be estimation noise rather than a real, distinct move.