[vasco]

The market moved in reaction to the totality of events that happened in the world all averaged out through the actions of the participants, anyone who says "this" was what happened on any day is wrong. Some days have dominating factors but even if the event is the dominant one, the reason why it has the impact it does might be a 3rd or 4th level effect.

[JumpCrisscross]

> anyone who says "this" was what happened on any day is wrong

There is never a singular reason. But there are negligible reasons. S&P not changing its rules was a negligible reason for today's tanking.

[altmanaltman]

But how can you quantify that? There is no way to prove it, the market cannot say "I wasn't moved by this, I was actually moved by that and this part was actually just negligible."

Isn't it all subjective in the end because nobody really makes their trades with verifiable notes expressing the exact reason. So we can only guess right?

[JumpCrisscross]

> how can you quantify that?

Precedent and timing. Rates-related news is always going to massively shift the market, and the market shifting right after the jobs report is a pretty clear signal.

Moreover, S&P holding course wasn't new information–there was zero evidence of anyone pre-trading a rebalancing, which means the market didn't expect S&P to materially change its rules.

[khazhoux]

Thank you! So sick of people always ascribing the market's movement to whichever narrative headline they pick that day.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Heh. I would not discount narrative so fast. You may not believe it, but it does not mean others don't.

[kd913]

My theory is hedgies and investment banks using semi and ai hype as a liquidity bridge to drop into SpaceX which happens next week.

Arm and AMD pumped to insane levels on basically nothing.

What proof is there for your narrative versus mine?

[iugtmkbdfil834]

:D The proof for theory tends to be somewhat stable, by which I mean: 'the theory can be tested and produces results in line with what the theory predicts.'

If you are asking why one theory tends to be better than another is qualitative at best, but irrelevant quick. Once the two theories settled in people's brains, it only exacerbated the sell off. In a sense, the theories were irrelevant. Their impact, however, was not.

In other words, I think you have the entire structure all wrong. It is not binary at all. Or, at least, it does not require for it to be mutually exclusive.

[JumpCrisscross]

> a liquidity bridge to drop into SpaceX

What does this mean?

[kd913]

It means financial companies have been illogically pumping semiconductor companies the last 5 months despite the profits, royalties and supply chain being entire worse than a year ago.

They pumped ai adjacent stocks to draw retail in, to provide liquidity now when they are in theory forced to purchase SpaceX.

Effectively getting people to buy semi-ai stocks at a premium to fund their forced purchase for SpaceX.

[bakies]

> AMD is nothing

What?

SpaceX is the hype not AMD guy

[iugtmkbdfil834]

I will admit that I am starting to understand Musk's contempt for retail investors. edit: They have no problem lining behind supporting what is now effectively Musk oriented slush fund.

[gizajob]

You’re prioritising one narrative headline over another though.