Predicting the US 2016 Presidential Election : Will Nate Silver Make it Again ?
The signal and the noise
Who is Nate Silver?
Nathaniel Read "Nate" Silver (born January 13, 1978) is an American statistician and writer who analyzes baseball and elections. He is currently the
editor-in-chief of ESPN's FiveThirtyEight and a Special Correspondent for ABC News.
Silver first gained public
recognition for developing PECOTA, a
system for forecasting the performance and career development of Major League Baseball players, which he sold to and then
managed for Baseball Prospectus from 2003 to 2009.
After Silver successfully
called the outcomes in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election,
he was named one of The World's
100 Most Influential People by Time in 2009.
In 2010, the FiveThirtyEight blog was licensed for publication by The New York Times. In 2012 and 2013, FiveThirtyEight won Webby
Awards as the "Best
Political Blog" from the International
Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences.
In the 2012 U.S Presidential
election, Silver correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The Signal and the Noise won the 2013 Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science. The book has been translated into nine
languages: Chinese (separate editions in traditional and simplified
characters), Czech, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian, and
Romanian.
So, what is his call
on this upcoming 2016 US Presidential Election?
image credit to fivethirtyeight.com |
image credit to fivethirtyeight.com |
Will the new
FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server issue causing any
harm and allowing Donald Trump to play the “catching up “ in next 7 days? Yet
to see, you may monitor the forecast from this web closely in the next few days.
What about
predicting the outcome in the stock market?
In Chapter
11 of his book, Nate Silver dedicated this chapter to discuss the challenge
in predicting the market’s movement.
“ Chapter 11
: if you can’t Beat ‘Em …”
“ In 2009,
a year after the financial crisis had wrecked the global economy, American
investors traded $8 million in stocks every second that the New York Stock Exchange was open for business. Over the course of the typical trading day, the
volume grew to $185 billion, roughly as much as the economies of Nigeria, the
Philippines or Ireland produce an entire year.
Over the course of the whole of
2009, more than $46 trillion in stocks were traded: four times more than the
revenues of all the companies in Fortune 500 put together. This furious
velocity of trading is something fairly new,
In the 1950s , the average share of
common stock in An American company was held for about six years before being
traded – consistent with the idea that stocks are for long term investment. During the 2000s, the velocity of trading had increased roughly twelvefold. Instead of
being held for six years, the same share of stock was traded after six months.
“ wrote Nate.
image credit to books from the signal and the noise |
Under such
velocity and frequency of trading, the whole stock market looks like a "giant casino “, hence make the prediction very challenging and seems impossible.
According to
him: “ Some theorists have proposed that we should think of the stock market
as constituting two processes in one. There is the “ signal track”, the stock
market of the 1950s that we read about in textbooks. This is the market that
prevails in the long run, with investors making relatively few trades, and
prices well tied down to fundamental. It helps investors to plan for their
retirement and helps companies capitalize themselves.
Then there is
the fast track, the “noise track”,
which is full of momentum trading, positive feedback, skewed incentive and herding
behaviour. Usually, it is just a “rock-paper-scissors” game that does no real
good to the broader economy- It is just a bunch of sweaty traders passing money
around “.
In “The Signal
and the Noise” Silver also investigates how predictions are made in a wide
range of fields, including chess, baseball, weather forecasting, politics and
earthquake analysis. He offers hopeful examples (baseball and weather
predictions), but weighs the progress against a series of catastrophes that no
one saw coming, such as the September 11 attacks, the global financial
crisis and the earthquake and tsunami in Fukushima.
The Economist wrote:
“In the spirit of Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s widely-read ‘The Black Swan,’ Mr.
Silver asserts that humans are overconfident in their predictive abilities,
that they struggle to think in probabilistic terms and build models that do not
allow for uncertainty.”
The book makes both
philosophical and technical recommendations. “Once we’re getting the big stuff
right -- coming to a better understanding of probability and uncertainty;
learning to recognize our biases; appreciating the value of diversity,
incentives and experimentation -- we’ll have the luxury of worrying about the
finer points of technique,”
Silver argues that we have more
information than we know what to do with, but relatively little of it is
useful. “We think we want information when we really want knowledge,” he wrote.
We know that predicting the stock market is hard and near
to impossible but if we could predict the outcome of an important event which
would swing the market like U.S Presidential Election, why wait? We should be
watching it closely!
Cheers!
Quote Of The Day :
“The signal is the truth. The noise is what distracts us from
the truth.” by Nate Silver
Hi STE
ReplyDeleteGreat post again!
I am going to ask a stupid question:
Why is there a lock (is that what it is?) on the book?
TTI
Hi TTI,
DeleteOps! Sorry,not a lock , that was just a bookmark my friend bought it from China,, :)
I hope this will not cause you to spend money on Amazon again ,, haha,
Cheers !
Nate Silver predicted early and often that Trump wouldn’t last long in the Republican presidential race. And he wasn’t alone: a lot of people said Trump would flame out over time. Pretty much everyone was saying it.
ReplyDeleteWhat distinguished Nate Silver from everyone else was the confidence with which he was saying it. He was all but guaranteeing it. He operates in a world filled with mathematical models that had never before failed him. Then they failed him.
He thinks in probabilities. And his mind is open to a range of potential outcomes before, during, and -- most important -- after he's made his forecast. Things might go this way, or they might go that way. He adjusts the odds of certain outcomes when new information arrives. It's the most effective way to think about the future.
Let's see how his forecast will change over the next few days and lets hope that the recent news from FBI remains just noise.
Hi Andy,
DeleteThanks for the comments, yah ! No matter how complicated of the algorithm modeling, it just a way to calculate the probability of certain outcome and will always have " margin of error " , no matter how small it is ,,,yup, let's see how things develop in next few days if the FBI's incident remain as noise or a real signal...:)
Cheers!
Looks like almost all of the pollsters were wrong - including the predictions on the reactions of the stock market afterwards. Lucky me I did not trade yesterday. I certainly would have been on the wrong end of the trade.
DeleteThe weak performance of the pollsters confirms for me that humans are firstly not rational and secondly not honest.
Nate Silver and his team - after confirming the probability at 80% the night before the election - quickly changed their forecasts in tandem with the events. Fair enough. But that also means that we can not derive any actionable measures from Forecasts without being prepared for the unexpected.
And the election confirms again that the most influential and devastating events in history are, by definition, the least anticipated. Have you seen any "Black Swan" lately.
Hi Andy ,
ReplyDeleteYah ! almost all the pollsters and pundits got it wrong and very wrong... Even the Wall Street ,,, DJ swing from -800 plus ( future ) to end + ve of almost 300 points ,,, :o
While things being settled down ,,, people seems starting to look at positive side that " mane his massive tax cut proposed might be good , spending on infrastructure might create jobs , less dependence on wall-street's view in drawing his policy as he doesn't owe any party for donation in his campaign,,, etc "
Well, that' s politics and we will need to move on with real economic front,,, quoted today's article in The Business Time by Prof Philip Parker ,, " How will America cope ( with this new president-elect) ? My forecast is just fine , remember that we have previously elected movie actors, peanut farmers and rough riders to the presidency. "
Hope it will turn out to be that way ! Cheers :-)