
According to a Northwestern University study, the ability to “buy” contracts on candidates Barack Obama and John McCain led to the correct prediction that Obama would win the presidency.
Here it is:
Political prediction markets — in which participants buy and sell “contracts” based on who they think will win an election — accurately predicted Barack Obama’s 2008 victory. Now Northwestern University researchers have determined that these markets behave similar to financial markets.
However, a problem arises when strong partisanship arises. In the 2000 election, for instance, there was such strong partisan rancor that flawed the prediction model, said Daniel Diermeier, the IBM Distinguished Professor of Regulation and Competitive Practice at the Kellogg School of Management.
“I was happy that we could find an account for this abnormality, given that it made sense in the market,” Diermeier says. “You are trading in a market where you may have a very vested interest in the outcome, which is unlike financial markets, where traders probably don’t have an emotional attachment to the price of gold. In political prediction markets, there can be room for wishful thinking.”
But could this behavior point out a bias in the financial market. A trader may not have an emotional attachment to gold, but may have a dislike of Walmart, let’s say. Or, a trader may not like his or her current financial state, causing the trader to bet negatively. Likewise, a confident trader may bet into a bubble.
Our feeling is that emotions and bias should be understood as factors in price movements, but that an unbiased investment system, if properly trained, could better trade these choppy markets without getting caught up in the wrong positions that are based on the two main biases of investors: fear and greed.
Accelerating Technology, Business Strategy, Investing, Money, Online Investing AI
invest, investment, investment systems, investors, Money, prediction, prediction market, trade, traders, trading