As the really serious news followers might know, President Obama was re-elected on Tuesday. Shockingly, some people who voted against Obama weren't too happy. Facebook intellectuals yelled about socialism, America going down the toilet, etc. A few fratstars at the University of Mississippi sobered up long enough to realize that Obama was re-elected president of the South too. So they went to their student union and started dropping N-bombs (bad look, Mississippi fratstars). Ted Nugent wrote something on Twitter about the tears of blood he was crying, or something like that. Needless to say, the really intellectual media was more serious. They focused on the next day, when markets experienced their biggest one-day drop of the year. "See! Obama is bad for the economy!", they yelled. Or, at the least, they took for granted the idea that markets tanked in response to Obama's re-election. This wasn't just a right-wing or mainstream-media meme; the left's typical response to markets moving in a way they don't like is either that markets don't benefit the working class anyway (not really true) or that we shouldn't care what Wall Street thinks because finance and bankers are evil. The problem with this narrative is that it's as badly wrong as it is prevalent.
The first thing to note is that markets participants aren't stupid. Markets can be, and often are, systemically inefficient. An entire sector of the economy (real estate) was overpriced for years. Right after another (tech stocks) was also overpriced for years. The Ron Paul followers will yell that the market was efficient and it was all the Federal Reserve's fault because interest rates were too low. That's wrong. But the point is that markets aren't dumber than the rest of us-- they can look at movements in markets and economic indicators, calculate probabilities, and price the impact that events might have into what they'll pay for an asset, or the amount for which they'll sell an asset. Now, that doesn't mean markets are right-- if markets shoot up in response to a particular policy or crater in response to another policy (or a likelihood of someone being elected), it doesn't mean that they're right; it just reflects their expectations, which may well be wrong. But the question isn't whether markets are right to love or hate Obama-- it's whether markets reacted yesterday to Obama's election on Tuesday. And the answer to that is pretty clearly "no".
The second thing to note is that the election wasn't that close. Sure, Obama won a somewhat narrow popular vote victory, but the media's obsession with "momentum" and particular polls largely obscured what anyone who can read data (and that most certainly includes Wall Street traders and hedge fund managers) already knew-- that anything but an Obama victory on Tuesday would have been a major surprise. As hard as the National Review, Fox, George Will and Dick Morris tried to pretend it was otherwise, the odds of Obama winning the election haven't dipped below 60% in a long time. Going into election day, all of the relevant number crunchers (statisticians at universities, bloggers like Nate Silver, etc.) put the odds of an Obama electoral victory at well over 90%. The main stream media, not to mention the right-wing echo chamber, liked to pretend that, because most of these number crunchers are personally left-leaning, their poll numbers must be biased. Which (again) is wrong. The wishful-thinkers yelled that Romney was winning independents (ignoring that "independents" in this election were, in large part, Tea Party folks who called themselves independents, then voted straight Republican, while a lot of previous independents became Democrats) and that turnout would be lower than it was in 2008 (as if Silver's turnout model was wishful thinking). In reality, though, liberal members of the media aren't like the Fox News folks-- they think of tabulating numbers as an exercise in math, not partisanship. Because, really, what good does believing your guy will win do? It might make it easier to sleep at night, but then you still have to confront reality. And then, when that reality looks different from what you predicted, you end up looking like a fool. Like George Will, Dick Morris and Michael Barone, who all predicted a Romney victory with over 300 electoral votes and came out with egg on their faces. Most interestingly, if you look at that link, left-leaning predictions mostly skewed toward the low end-- the ones who got the electoral math precisely right weren't Democratic pundits-- they were number-crunchers like Silver, Davidson College's Josh Putnam, and Princeton's Sam Wang. (Incidentally, a lot of people on the left like to pretend that Silver is some kind of wizard; he's not-- he just has a rather good, but far from unique, model for crunching poll data compiled by others).
So anyone looking at the numbers realized that anything but an Obama victory on Tuesday was unlikely (though, obviously, not impossible). And Wall Street types who have money on the line in the market don't much care who they hope wins the election when it comes to putting money in the market-- they care about who WILL win the election. And they knew as well as Nate Silver that it was almost definitely going to be Obama. Another useful way to think of it is as a probability. Say you can bet on a roll of a 10-sided die; any number 1-9 pays you $1000, and a 10 means you get nothing. Mathematically, you should pay $900 for a roll. Now imagine the game changes and a 9 becomes a losing roll. Now, you should pay $800. In electoral terms, Obama winning the election meant a move from a 90% probability of getting paid to a 100% probability. But the price of the roll only changed by 10%. In that scenario, a 2.5% swing in the stock market by reason of an event with 95% probability occurring is completely irrational. Yet that's what happened when Obama went from 95% certain to win the election to 100% certain-- Wall Street knew perfectly well that he was almost certainly going to win the election on Monday, so any change after the election would reflect only the cementing of a highly likely outcome.
Which begs the question: what DID move the market on Wednesday? It's probably not noise trading; one-day swings can and do happen, but the likelihood of that big a swing coming on the day after the election, especially when no particularly ground-breaking news came out of Europe means that markets were likely reacting to something that happened on election day. And my best guess is that they were reacting to the impact of the balance of power on negotiations over January's fiscal cliff. And I think that has something to do with the outcome of the House vote. Now, it's important to note that it's a lot easier to call a presidential race than an aggregated balance of power in a whole bunch of House races; if the margin of error in one or two states swings from one candidate to another, it will rarely decide the entire election. Put another way, Nate Silver was about 95% sure Obama would win the election, but he was only about 52% sure that Obama would win Florida. In the grand picture, though, that would be irrelevant. Obama will almost certainly win Florida... but even if he loses Florida, he will still be president. Meanwhile, in a particular House race, a 52% chance of a particular candidate winning actually means that a different person will represent the district. Combine that with the fact that people generally spend less time thinking about who they'll vote for in the House compared to the presidency or even the Senate, and you've got polling data that's substantially less reliable and less certain. So pollsters and markets knew with a high degree of confidence that Obama would almost certainly be President, and that the Senate would stay narrowly democratic (while the balance is probably slightly more favorable to Democrats than might have been expected, there's not a substantive difference in policy between a 54-46 Democratic majority and a 52-48 Democratic majority.
Which leaves the House. It was always highly likely that Republicans would keep control of the House. The question was what kind of majority they would enjoy. A bigger majority would be interpreted as a mandate to resist hiking top marginal rates at all costs and keep playing the obstructionist game. A narrower majority would have handed power to those who are interested in compromising on tax rates, while a majority that looked like the previous one would be interpreted by the Tea Party fringe as a sign that no tax hikes are ever acceptable (and yes, that's a fringe position that makes no sense). What further complicates it is that the President is actually in a rather strong bargaining position. If the country DOES go over the fiscal cliff, the uncertainty that creates will jar markets (and, later, if the tax hikes and spending cuts actually take place, contract the economy), but it will also put the Tea Party in an odd negotiating position. If the country does go over the fiscal cliff, and the President proposes a tax cut for all incomes under $250,000, the Tea Party will find itself either having to go along or holding up a tax cut for everyone just because they won't also get tax cuts for the wealthy. Politically, that's an ugly position to take. And it puts the President in a powerful bargaining position.
So I think it's the (still rather extreme) makeup of the House, and the Tea Party's ability (and possible willingness) to hold a deal hostage in order to get the tax cuts they want that drove markets down. That's more amateur political science than anything else, so it may just be a stab in the dark. But what is certain is that, if someone declares that markets tanked yesterday because Obama was re-elected, they're wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment