Astrologers cashing in on stock market uncertainty
Please tell me this is an early April Fool:
Skinner is one of a growing, albeit secretive, network of astrologers who work for seemingly conservative British institutions such as high street banks, City investment funds and retailers. Desperate to avoid financial meltdown and to spot fashions and consumer trends before they start, these institutions have turned to the planets to divine the future.
Great. As if there weren't enough problems already.
"Most academics distrust astrology and regard it as mumbo-jumbo," she says. "The thing is, it works. Nobody's sure how it works, but it does. Most of my clients are business people who are very canny. If it didn't work for them, why would they use it?"
Maybe because the idea of the ultra-rational businessperson is a pervasive myth? Somebody who works in 'business' (whatever this means) is just as vulnerable to logical fallacies as the rest of us. Try watching Question Time - the 'business' panelists are regularly the most cringeworthy, and often have rings run around them by debate-trained politicians. Being good at making money doesn't mean you know how to think.
Hitler, a keen user of astrology, notably failed to take into account Mercury's influence. He launched the Battle of Britain and planned Operation Sealion - the invasion of Britain - just as Mercury turned retrograde. Both mistakes dealt serious blows to his plans for world domination.
Christ. No other factors involved there. Post-hoc rationalisation, anyone?
While many decry astrology as bunkum, Dr Percy Seymour, an astrophysicist recently retired from Plymouth University, has his own theory of how this inexact science might work. He believes that low-frequency magnetic fields emanating from the sun interact with those of the earth, which in turn affect the functioning of the human brain.
"The magnetic field of the sun can be affected by the movement and position of the planets," he says. "Having said all that, I don't believe that the cosmos controls us, but it can influence us."
It's a neat theory, but does it stand up to scrutiny?
Well, no. Theory is redundant without an effect to explain, and there's no evidence of planetary movements affecting anything. The 'cosmos' only influences us in as much as, when times get bad, people will turn to anything. I'm sure The Skeptics' Guide once mentioned a correlation between economic downturns and the popularity of woo, although I can't find anything to back this up atm. Incidentally, Dr. Percy Seymour has apparently been saying this stuff for a while, and his theories are taken apart here.
Jim Porter (not his real name), chief technical analyst for one of the largest banks in Britain, believes it does. He uses heliocentric astrology to predict the direction of the international financial markets.
Millions of pounds' worth of commodities, shares and currencies are traded on his command. His decisions may affect the values of your pension and your home, and perhaps decide how long you hold on to your job.
We're all screwed.
I'm pretty skeptical of the stock market. I've yet to be convinced its movements aren't random (or, at least, chaotic) and inherently unpredictable. Richard Wiseman detailed in Quirkology how the investments of a stock analyst, an astrologer and a five-year-old girl performed over different periods of time - from a week to a year1. The girl won. Random processes are an easy mark for anything that claims to predict the future - the nature of random data means there'll always be some pattern you can take credit for.
Via Bad Science.
- or longer, I've lent my copy out so can't check atm [↩]
Malcolm Gladwell on Enron
Blink author Malcolm Gladwell has a characteristically fascinating piece in this week's New Yorker magazine, detailing how Enron's massive financial problems were exposed. He uses the topic to explore the theme of puzzles versus mysteries - puzzles have a solution and simply require the correct information, mysteries require judgements based on huge amounts of disparate data - and how an ability to investigate the latter is becoming increasingly important in everything from financial markets to national security. En route he takes in second world war intelligence analysts and Watergate, and the article has some remarkably clear descriptions of economic machinations. It becomes clear that there was no whistleblower - all the information required to spot Enron's problems was in the public domain:
But you can’t blame Enron for covering up the existence of its side deals. It didn’t; it disclosed them. The argument against the company, then, is more accurately that it didn’t tell its investors enough about its S.P.E.s. But what is enough? Enron had some three thousand S.P.E.s, and the paperwork for each one probably ran in excess of a thousand pages. It scarcely would have helped investors if Enron had made all three million pages public. What about an edited version of each deal? Steven Schwarcz, a professor at Duke Law School, recently examined a random sample of twenty S.P.E. disclosure statements from various corporations—that is, summaries of the deals put together for interested parties—and found that on average they ran to forty single-spaced pages. So a summary of Enron’s S.P.E.s would have come to a hundred and twenty thousand single-spaced pages. What about a summary of all those summaries? That’s what the bankruptcy examiner in the Enron case put together, and it took up a thousand pages. Well, then, what about a summary of the summary of the summaries? That’s what the Powers Committee put together. The committee looked only at the “substance of the most significant transactions,” and its accounting still ran to two hundred numbingly complicated pages and, as Schwarcz points out, that was “with the benefit of hindsight and with the assistance of some of the finest legal talent in the nation.”
Yet despite this it was journalists who studied the figures and broke the story, not financial analysts, and MG follows up on this point on his blog. He describes the article as a "semi-defence" of the company - they still behaved illegally, but there are interesting questions as to why the financial community didn't notice earlier, when logic would suggest that's its job and in its best interests. There's no suggestion of wrongdoing, just that, perhaps, the current system isn't capable of investigating this kind of mystery without outside help. If you check out the article, be sure to stick around for the final two paragraphs.
I continue to be amazed by Malcolm Gladwell's writing ability. Anybody who can not only prevent my eyes glazing over but actually get me interested in stock markets, bank loan criteria and hedge funds must have quite the talent.
