There is something about the human condition that causes us to thirst for answers. An I-don’t-know answer leaves us in an apparent knowledge vacuum. While the headlines above are made up, they’re not far from actual headlines, and contradictory headlines like these are a regular occurrence, as news outlets seek to satisfy our need for explanations.

The truth, however, is that there aren’t simple answers for why billions of shares of stock trade hands on a single day or why trillions (uh huh…with a T) of dollars of currencies change hands every day. If there were, it would have to all tie together into some sort of unified field theory of financial markets. Otherwise, how can falling oil prices explain rising stock prices until they don’t.

One of the best books of all time, The Money Game, by Adam Smith, first got me to understand financial markets as an organism, so it’s natural to ask why “the Market” did X. We do this all the time, “so, why did you leave your underwear on the floor, Junior?” or “would someone please tell me why all of these lights have to be on?” Why shouldn’t the oil market have to explain—or we for it—why it fell? Well, certainly, OPEC opened the spigots wider. And, naturally, it had to be the GDP report that caused stocks to rise, unless the GDP report made it more likely that the Fed would raise rates, which would cause stocks to fall until it doesn’t.

So here’s what happens. Financial television hosts interviews with money managers and others during the trading day. The conversation goes something like this:

TV host: So, Miss Smart Person (MSP), why are futures down this morning?

MSP: Well, Jim, we got reports out of China overnight that the Chinese economy is growing more slowly than expected.

TV host: That shouldn’t be a surprise to markets, should it, MSP? I mean, we’ve always known the Chinese economy had to slow down some time, right?

As a result, the mid-morning scrolling financial TV story is, “Stocks fall on renewed concern that the Chinese economy may be slowing.” So long as stocks finish the day down, this line will work. If, later in the day, stocks rally, then the story line has to change, and it might change like this.

TV host: Well, Mr. Fancy Suit (MFS), earlier today, we had Miss Smart Person in the studio. She said that stocks were falling because the Chinese economy was slowing, yet—here we are, with stocks finishing the day strong. What gives?

MFS: Thanks for having me on the show, Jim. As you know, we heard from the CFO of Home Depot, who said they’re seeing strong contractor orders, which seemed to buoy the markets.

If I were in charge of a financial television network, there would be a third interview. It would go something like this.

TV host: We’re glad to have you on the show with us today, Miss Intellectual Honesty (MIH). We heard this morning that stocks were down because of Chinese economic activity, yet this afternoon we were told that comments from Home Depot’s CFO were the cause for a rally in stocks. Who’s right?

MIH: Jim, this is all nonsense. There’s not a single person alive who knows why stocks did what they did. That person would have to know the motivations of every person—and machine—for their—and its—motivations for what they did, and that’s just not possible. The best we can do is—with apologies to J.P. Morgan, the man—say that stocks fluctuated.

Unfortunately for my TV network, this would be the same interview everyday, and few advertisers would sign up to advertise on my network. In short, it’ll never happen. You will continue to see reasons touted for every squiggle in every market. Just be sure of one thing—surer than any of the interviewees can ever be—no one knows! No. One.

The post But Why? appeared first on Strategence Capital.