Don’t invest by headlines

Make text smaller Make text larger

  • Market jitters: President Donald Trump's actions on trade should not be a surprise, as he campaigned on a protectionist agenda

    Market jitters: President Donald Trump's actions on trade should not be a surprise, as he campaigned on a protectionist agenda


The return of volatility in the first quarter versus 2017 was our focus last week. Some interesting pushback followed the premise that prices seem to ignore news sometimes and at other times hang on every headline.

My explanation: most people have this correlation backward. Contrary to widespread belief, the news does not drive markets or prices; rather, it is the markets that drive news. As I wrote:

Last year, the US launched missiles at Russians fighting in Syria, and the market closed up that day. The US made ominous-sounding threats against the rogue regime of North Korea, and Mr Market shrugged. President Donald Trump was beset by multiple scandals that could threaten his presidency and yet markets kept rising.

Compare that with this year, when tensions ratcheted up with North Korea and the S&P 500 took a thrashing.

Or how about a trade war? Trump got serious about that this year, and markets reacted in kind — negatively, that is. And yet, this should hardly be a surprise to anyone, since a populist-protectionist agenda is what the guy literally campaigned on.

If you believe the market is remotely efficient, that it typically incorporates all known information into prices, then none of the above should come as a surprise.

You don’t believe price drives news?

My favourite example was during the early weeks of the war in Iraq. A headline one morning proclaimed, “Historic mosque bombing sends stocks lower and oil spikes higher”. That is the classic narrative explanation, that this event caused that reaction. But it is often misleading, given how random day-to-day prices can be and how quickly they can reverse themselves. Indeed, by the end of that day, stock prices had recovered to turn positive, and the oil price spike ended as quickly as it started. The article headline was changed to “Despite historic mosque bombing, stock prices recover and oil stabilises.” The facts changed, but the basic narrative remained the same.

In the print-only era, the daily headlines were less easily shown to be so wrong. The 24/7 internet era reveals more of these narrative errors.

The news media have got better at using the word “as” instead of phrases like “because” or “due to”. If that same news story occurred today, it might have carried a headline like “Stocks fall, oil rises as historic mosque bombed.” It is a recognition of a correlation without the implied narrative-driven causation.

Genuine news can drive prices — previously unknown scandals, takeovers, and earnings misses are the stuff that can move stocks and markets. This is information that isn’t already reflected in prices. However, such events tend to be relatively rare. Most media coverage reflects the normal human bias to tell memorable narrative stories rather than rely on dry and easily forgettable data.

Consider the evidence for this:

1. Narratives: columns and articles all use the traditional tools of literature. There are well-developed characters, often in conflict with one another, with overtones of good and evil. The story arc builds to a climax, with winners and losers. The narrative tale often is compelling and even entertaining. This means that article mentioned above is less about a fully contextualised and accurate analysis and more about good storytelling.

2. Threat awareness: evolution has primed your brain to identify possible threats to your survival. It is fair to note a manifestation of this in our collective focus on bad events versus the signs of progress or even good news. Danger is an existential risk, potentially reducing your ability to pass your genes along. Good news does not provide a competitive procreative benefit. Not focusing on risks means those who are “risk-neutral” did not pass along their genes, to the advantage of those who were “risk-sensitive”.

3. Disproportionate coverage: the news media can create a distorted view of the world. For example, US news outlets tend to overemphasise domestic events while underrepresenting overseas coverage. This creates and reinforces a world view that is simply at odds with reality.

The tendency to think in terms of unproductive, money-losing narratives is ever-present. We see it with explaining market corrections, politics, gold, elections, venture-capital investments, financial crisis analyses, market crashes, individual stocks, models, and just about any stock market event. Humans simply love a good story, even if it is at odds with observable facts.

Narratives create memorable and interesting stories, but they don’t create an especially accurate picture of the world. Investors should be aware of this.

Barry Ritholtz is a Bloomberg View columnist. He founded Ritholtz Wealth Management and was chief executive and director of equity research at FusionIQ

You must be registered or signed-in to post comment or to vote.

Published Apr 7, 2018 at 8:00 am (Updated Apr 6, 2018 at 11:51 pm)

Don’t invest by headlines

What you
Need to
Know
1. For a smooth experience with our commenting system we recommend that you use Internet Explorer 10 or higher, Firefox or Chrome Browsers. Additionally please clear both your browser's cache and cookies - How do I clear my cache and cookies?
2. Please respect the use of this community forum and its users.
3. Any poster that insults, threatens or verbally abuses another member, uses defamatory language, or deliberately disrupts discussions will be banned.
4. Users who violate the Terms of Service or any commenting rules will be banned.
5. Please stay on topic. "Trolling" to incite emotional responses and disrupt conversations will be deleted.
6. To understand further what is and isn't allowed and the actions we may take, please read our Terms of Service
7. To report breaches of the Terms of Service use the flag icon

  • Take Our Poll

    • "What are your views on stop-and-search in today's Bermuda?"
    • Inconvenient but necessary
    • 69%
    • Wholly unproductive
    • 10%
    • Unfair targeting of young black males
    • 21%
    • Total Votes: 4697
    • Poll Archive

    Today's Obituaries

    eMoo Posts