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+2.54

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

Unit	Mean post-period gap	Max abs. gap
XLK	+22.28%	31.16%
XLI	+13.10%	17.25%
XLC	-8.39%	12.41%
XLF	+7.34%	13.70%
XLY	-7.03%	13.90%
XLP	-5.41%	7.02%
XLV	-3.96%	11.72%
XLB	-2.73%	7.00%
XLE	+2.25%	13.24%
XLRE	+1.41%	3.09%
XLU (treated)	-1.31%	3.85%

Verdict

XLU's post-period gap ranks #11 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 (+2.54) — 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.