Skip to main content

Why Did Stock Values Increase on June 13th?

Emblem of Qatar

After a brief slide, stock prices in the U.S. turned around and headed up on June 13.

Neither the slide nor the upward bounce was of historic significance by itself. The S&P 500 closed June 8, Thursday, at 2433.78. It closed the next day at 2,431.23. The following Monday, down somewhat again, to 2,429.48. So, as I say, on Tuesday it rose, closing at 2,441, reversing (by more than double) the losses of the two previous days.

This could be simple "random walk" stuff. But ... what brings it to mind is the way this particular bounce immediately became an item in political debate. Because June 13th happened to be the day Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified before Congress about Russia, Comey, and so forth, Trumpites drew a connection via social media even as Sessions was talking.

Mr. Market presumably approves of Trump, wants a vigorous Trump administration, and so cheered as Session rebuked that administration's foes. That's their story.

It has some obvious holes in it. Instead of discussing them in depth, let's just identify one of the (many) alternative hypotheses about the rise in stock prices that day which are equally plausible.

Perhaps Mr. Market believes that his interests are bound up with the interests of the royal family of Qatar. The week ending June 9th was a bad one for that family, with may of the other Arab states lining up against it, with the approval of the US administration. But by Tuesday the worse seemed to have passed. Both Turkey and Iran made it clear that they supported Qatar against its closer neighbors. Also, the United Arab Emirates backed off at least a bit, issuing a statement on Tuesday that said there would be "no military component" to the actions against Qatar.

It seems to me at least as plausible that small changes in a broad based index can be traced to the troubles and relief of the House of Thani as that they need to be traced to the troubles and relief of the House of Trump.

Another problem with the theory of course is that Sessions didn't do well.  I don't know of anyone who was favorably impressed by his testimony who wasn't very much primed to be favorably impressed, and their views had presumably already been discounted. It is hard to imagine any stock analyst or market maker who would have been hanging on the testimony and who would at some point Wednesday have shouted "NOW is the time to buy US equities again!"

The broad lesson here, though, is that trying to read the mind of the market on a day to day basis is a fool's errand. And it is so for philosophically weighty reasons, but I've written about them before -- in this blog and elsewhere -- and won't give one of those lectures again just now.


  1. Thanks for informative post. I am pleased sure this post has helped me save many hours of browsing other similar posts just to find what I was looking for. Just I want to say, Thank you

    Marc The Phone Man

  2. Ever wanted to get free YouTube Subscribers?
    Did you know that you can get these AUTOMATICALLY & TOTALLY FREE by using Add Me Fast?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …