Monday, December 13, was a good day at the New York Stock Exchange. The Dow Jones Industrial Average picked up nearly twenty-four points, sailing into record territory. Reuters' daily business report, in its lead paragraph, offered the following reason: "Growing optimism about America's increasing economic strength lifted blue-chip stocks to a record high."

Unfortunately, the next day, Tuesday December 14, the Dow lost almosttwenty-two points -- about the same amount it had gained on Monday's supposed tide of economic optimism. Now Reuters explained the sizable dip with a reference to "profit-taking." Had Tuesday's greed really eclipsed Monday's enthusiasm?

The answer, most likely, is no. "The truth is the market is such a vast place no one knows for sure why it rises and falls," says John Dorfman, a staff writer at The Wall Street Journal who watches the market closely.

Richard Sylla, a professor of economics at New York University who studies the history of financial institutions and markets, says the reasons cited for the day-to-day movement of the Dow are generally after-the-fact-rationalizations. "Most of us," Sylla adds, "think the short-term fluctuations of the market -- from hour-to-hour, minute-to-minute -- are basically random."

"It's impossible to know why the stock market rose or fell fifteen points when there's no news, no obvious news," concedes Rick Gladstone, deputy business editor at The Associated Press in New York. "It may have nothing to do with the news or with anything. But," he adds, "we are obliged to say what might've been at work. When I read stories that don't offer any explanations, I get very frustrated."

On December 14, when the Dow lost almost twenty-two points, the AP had three suspects in its lead, one of which was "concern about the political events in Russia."

But if apprehension over the strong showing of ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky in the Russian elections played a significant role that day, you wouldn't have known it from visiting Wall Street. Asked if Russian political instability was affecting her day, Melissa Martin, a New York Stock Exchange floor-trader, replied, "The way we trade down on the stock exchange floor, we're probably not looking as long-range as that. We're looking in more of a short term."

Nearby, at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp., managing director Brad Weekes, also thought the events in Russia were of peripheral concern. He said, "The market reacts to news that nobody knows about, when all of a sudden it's a major surprise." Weekes thought that the Russian political situation had been volatile for some time and that the latest development would not have a major impact on the market.

The actual reporting for a daily market piece generally consists of a series of phone calls to analysts, who offer their opinion as to why the market is doing what it is doing. Greg Crawford, a Reuters business correspondent, says that sufficient scrutiny will usually yield the right reason. "More often than not there are days you can pinpoint the factors," he says. The AP's Gladstone says that analysis, along with some "informed speculation" on the reporter's part, and some simplification ("due to deadline pressures") make up the elements of the day's market coverage.

Of course, without those elements, the business report would be little more than a collection of numbers. That prospect leads the Journal's John Dorfman to conclude that the risks of facile reporting are outweighed by the alternative -- offering no explanation. Numbers alone are not enough, he says. "There's an instinctive hunger to know why."

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe