In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 09 2016 03:04 KwarK wrote: Obviously it's not an exact science but the markets are swinging upwards pretty strongly, and did yesterday too. That's a pretty strong indicator that the financial markets predict a Clinton win, and they work pretty hard to find out as much information as possible as early as possible because information = money, the better informed you are the bigger your edge.
They could be wrong of course and like any other prediction, it's not an exact rule, if the markets placed Hillary's odds at 70% and they think it should be closer to 75% we'd see this outcome and it still wouldn't mean Trump couldn't win 25% of the time. But it does mean that the Wall Street consensus right now is that she's outperforming her odds.
My friend works in computational finance stuff. I don't know exactly what they do, but they trade stuff. When there is uncertainty or volatility in the world, they make a ton of money. He was saying that if Trump wins tonight, he won't be sleeping. He'll basically be working continuously throughout the entire night until who knows when.
Hooray for making money off of people panicking!
Judging by how the financial markets never slept after Brexit I think we could see the same thing here if Trump wins.
If Trump's point is that they didn't end the line when the poll closed, he'd have a point. None of Hillary's supporters had a problem when they did it during the primaries, so it wouldn't make sense to hate on Trump for wanting the same.
On November 09 2016 03:09 TheTenthDoc wrote: The GOP really seems to have missed the memo on trying to hide their systematic voter disenfranchisement strategy this year. This lawsuit, the issues in NC...it's more naked than ever. Then again, I suppose that's kind of a theme in this election.
Why do they need to try and hide it when there is no backlash for them doing it? Not like the people they are trying to suppress would have voted for them anyway.
I never actually realized how bad things were in NC. Like the news covered all the court decisions about voter supression (ID laws, less early voting, etc) being overruled, but I never realized that Republicans found a way to do it anyway until it came up in this topic. The county I live in doesn't have that problem so I wasn't aware of it.
One would think that voter suppression is undemocratic and people would be a lot more angry about it and it would be on the news at least.
On November 09 2016 03:08 Probe1 wrote: It's one of the most ridiculous, chaotic, unprecedented elections in the last 50 years and in living memory of many voters KwarK. If this was Bush versus Kerry or even Obama versus McCain I'd look to the tradition indicators. Today fuck Guam, fuck the markets, the polls are the only thing for me.
I'm not sure you understand. They're all doing their own private traditional indicators, polls, demographic info analysis, exit polls etc. Big finance trades the news and the margin between the odds the market is giving for an event happening and their own personal estimation of those odds. And while we cannot see the all of the primary data that goes into their conclusions that does not mean that it doesn't exist. The markets aren't simply trading on hope. The markets are trading up because their own traditional indicators suggest that the previous estimate for the odds of a Hillary victory were too low.
There's no less money to be made trading on the event than there is reporting on it. There's just as much information being privately gathered for business use as there is being publicly gathered for popular consumption through the media. We cannot see the specifics of that research but we can see the outcome of the analysis of it in aggregate.
On November 09 2016 03:09 TheTenthDoc wrote: The GOP really seems to have missed the memo on trying to hide their systematic voter disenfranchisement strategy this year. This lawsuit, the issues in NC...it's more naked than ever. Then again, I suppose that's kind of a theme in this election.
Why do they need to try and hide it when there is no backlash for them doing it? Not like the people they are trying to suppress would have voted for them anyway.
I never actually realized how bad things were in NC. Like the news covered all the court decisions about stuff being overruled, but I never realized that Republicans found a way to do it anyway until it came up in this topic. The county I live in doesn't have that problem so I wasn't aware of it.
One would think that voter suppression is undemocratic and people would be a lot more angry about it.
How many people do you think are actually even aware of an attempt at voter suppression? This is all done quite covertly and unless you look into it you wouldn't notice how it systematically discriminates against certain voters.
On November 09 2016 03:04 KwarK wrote: Obviously it's not an exact science but the markets are swinging upwards pretty strongly, and did yesterday too. That's a pretty strong indicator that the financial markets predict a Clinton win, and they work pretty hard to find out as much information as possible as early as possible because information = money, the better informed you are the bigger your edge.
They could be wrong of course and like any other prediction, it's not an exact rule, if the markets placed Hillary's odds at 70% and they think it should be closer to 75% we'd see this outcome and it still wouldn't mean Trump couldn't win 25% of the time. But it does mean that the Wall Street consensus right now is that she's outperforming her odds.
I guess that explains microsoft opening about 1.5 higher yesterday than it ended on friday? Although it's been quite stagnant since.
Nate Silver has a really good summary of where the election stands at this point, explaining all the sources of uncertainty that contribute to his predictions being what they are. To complement my previous point on "degree of belief" probabilities, he explains why it's true that Trump still has paths to victory, but that most feasible outcomes end in a Clinton win and that's why her odds are what they are.
On November 09 2016 03:04 KwarK wrote: Obviously it's not an exact science but the markets are swinging upwards pretty strongly, and did yesterday too. That's a pretty strong indicator that the financial markets predict a Clinton win, and they work pretty hard to find out as much information as possible as early as possible because information = money, the better informed you are the bigger your edge.
They could be wrong of course and like any other prediction, it's not an exact rule, if the markets placed Hillary's odds at 70% and they think it should be closer to 75% we'd see this outcome and it still wouldn't mean Trump couldn't win 25% of the time. But it does mean that the Wall Street consensus right now is that she's outperforming her odds.
What is the reasoning behind the swing in the markets depending on who wins the election? Why is it good for the market if Hillary wins, and bad if Trump does?
On November 09 2016 03:04 KwarK wrote: Obviously it's not an exact science but the markets are swinging upwards pretty strongly, and did yesterday too. That's a pretty strong indicator that the financial markets predict a Clinton win, and they work pretty hard to find out as much information as possible as early as possible because information = money, the better informed you are the bigger your edge.
They could be wrong of course and like any other prediction, it's not an exact rule, if the markets placed Hillary's odds at 70% and they think it should be closer to 75% we'd see this outcome and it still wouldn't mean Trump couldn't win 25% of the time. But it does mean that the Wall Street consensus right now is that she's outperforming her odds.
What is the reasoning behind the swing in the markets depending on who wins the election? Why is it good for the market if Hillary wins, and bad if Trump does?
The generic reasoning is "the markets prefer stability/predictability". Trump is a giant throbbing unknown.
If I put on my tin foil, Wall st and Health insurers spiked on good Hillary news because they are getting good deals if she does win.
On November 09 2016 03:04 KwarK wrote: Obviously it's not an exact science but the markets are swinging upwards pretty strongly, and did yesterday too. That's a pretty strong indicator that the financial markets predict a Clinton win, and they work pretty hard to find out as much information as possible as early as possible because information = money, the better informed you are the bigger your edge.
They could be wrong of course and like any other prediction, it's not an exact rule, if the markets placed Hillary's odds at 70% and they think it should be closer to 75% we'd see this outcome and it still wouldn't mean Trump couldn't win 25% of the time. But it does mean that the Wall Street consensus right now is that she's outperforming her odds.
What is the reasoning behind the swing in the markets depending on who wins the election? Why is it good for the market if Hillary wins, and bad if Trump does?
Trumps claims of that being a business man makes him good the economy have never really translated to the markets themselves. Ending long standing trade agreements and talking about defaulting on the national debt does not make for a stable, predictable market.
On November 09 2016 03:04 KwarK wrote: Obviously it's not an exact science but the markets are swinging upwards pretty strongly, and did yesterday too. That's a pretty strong indicator that the financial markets predict a Clinton win, and they work pretty hard to find out as much information as possible as early as possible because information = money, the better informed you are the bigger your edge.
They could be wrong of course and like any other prediction, it's not an exact rule, if the markets placed Hillary's odds at 70% and they think it should be closer to 75% we'd see this outcome and it still wouldn't mean Trump couldn't win 25% of the time. But it does mean that the Wall Street consensus right now is that she's outperforming her odds.
What is the reasoning behind the swing in the markets depending on who wins the election? Why is it good for the market if Hillary wins, and bad if Trump does?
Say a company does a lot of business in Asia. The valuation of that business depends heavily on whether that trade is disrupted by protectionism. If you think that one guy will win the company has a value of X, if the other guy wins it'll be Y. If it's a coin flip then the value will be halfway between the two. The market surge is a result of adjustments based from predicting that the old compromise estimate was wrong and that the value is closer to X than people thought it was. Make sense?
It doesn't mean Y can't happen but it does mean they think the old value overrated the chance of Y.
EPT
