Numberscruncher: “American Idol” and the Stock Market

Ann Logue January 12, 2010 6

John Maynard Keynes, the eminent economist who is back in style, described the stock market as a beauty contest. He asked the readers of his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money to imagine a newspaper contest featuring six photos, with everyone who picked the most beautiful being eligible for a prize. The prize winners would be rewarded not for picking the person they thought was the best looking, but rather the person that everyone else thought was best-looking. When it comes to stocks, therefore, the key is to pick the companies that you think everyone else will want to buy, because when they buy the shares, they will bid up the price. It doesn’t matter what you think will be the best investment. Instead, you have to guess what everyone else will choose.

Keynes was trying to simplify his explanation of how the market works, but his example turned out to be strangely convoluted. What kind of contest would this be?

But this week, we have a great example of what kind of contest it is: an American Idol pool. Wherever people gather in this great land of ours, they’ll be betting on which person ridiculed by Simon tonight will end up going all the way.

The winner of American Idol is rarely the best singer or performer; consider that the biggest star to come from the show is probably Jennifer Hudson, who was eliminated before the semi-final vote in the third season of the show, brought back as a wild card, and then eliminated again to finish in seventh place. Fantasia Barrino won that year.  Fantasia has had an okay career since winning, but she’s the lesser of the two stars. Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood have had much success, but Taylor Hicks and Ruben Stoddard have not.

If you bet on the American Idol winner, you are not betting on the singer you like best, or even the singer who is the most talented. Instead, you need to bet on the singer that “America” will like best when Ryan Seacrest urges “America” to vote. Thus it is someone talented enough to stay on the show when Simon/Randy/Paula/Ellen have their say, charismatic enough to garner a following from those viewers who are committed enough to voting (and voting and voting), and bland enough to appeal to many while offending very few. Carly Smithson’s tattoos alone would have kept her from winning Season 7, especially with David Archuleta capturing the hearts of Tweens who Text and David Cook getting the votes of their mothers.

Now, apply that to the stock market: you aren’t looking for the stock with the best balance sheet, or the best prospects, or the most responsible governance. Instead, you are looking for the stock that other people will get excited about. The result? The Internet bubble of the 1990s. Keynes’ concept applies to other markets, too, like that for luxury condominiums in Las Vegas.

Regardless of what the teabaggaz think, Keynes is back in fashion because his work in the General Theory applied to the Depression and has lessons for the current era; hardly anyone has done as much thinking on the problem of deflation. His work on the stock market was a bit of a throwaway; Keynes enjoyed speculating in the stock market and made good money at it, too, but it was not his primary area of research. In fact, the stock market didn’t receive a lot of serious academic attention until the 1950s and 1960s, when the Modern Portfolio Theory was developed. It’s based on the idea that markets are rational and efficient, which is questionable. That’s sending many researchers back to their computers to try to determine a new theory for how markets work.

But maybe it’s time to think about Keynes, especially as the new season of American Idol begins. Is the market for American Idols efficient? Probably not. Any evaluation of the contestants will be subjective, and the winner will still have to appeal to the people who watch American Idol and participate in the voting.

And even if you do not watch the show, you know have enough insight to win your office Idol pool.

  • http://www.annlogue.com annielogue

    Also, if you are an Idol fan on Facebook, please join the group Whitney Pastorek for Next American Idol Judge, Whitney Pastorek being a friend of mine who covers Idol for Entertainment Weekly.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    You're on target here. The viewership of America is a great metaphor for the stock purchaser because the aim is all about influencing and not about confidence in the actual product. I only wish there were better indicators of early stock performance to study – at least you get to hear the kids warble through AI.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    I have not read Keynes. No argument that Keynes was for central control. But correct me if I'm wrong– wasn't Keynes really advocating a balanced approach where surpluses could be run in good times and deficits in bad times? This seems a balanced approach, and totally contrary to the history of our system since Keynes, which has been one of never-ending deficit.

    To say Keynes is back in fashion is to say that his name is being bandied about a lot. I hardly think he would approve of our overall approach to managing money supply.

    And what the hell is wrong with deflation, anyway? Isn't that just another means of evening out imbalances in the economic system? Currency inflation is theft, plain and simple. I am coming more and more to the opinion that we should buy gold and silver, not as investments, but as a statement against the corrupt central banks, and the cabal of political and corporate interests the CBs serve. It's a way to say, “We opt out of your system of fraud. Keep your Federal Reserve Notes, and wipe your butts with them.” With the policies being followed, that may be all they are ultimately good for.

    Also, perhaps you could answer this for me. Would you call Paul Volker a Keynesian? He did seem to have his head screwed on properly. (Pity no one's listening to him now.) The only good thing Carter ever did was appoint Volker. Of course, that's what sealed his fate in the election of 1980, but Carter was too dumb to know it.

  • http://www.annlogue.com annielogue

    Keynes wasn't concerned about the money supply, his issue was fiscal policy. The U.S. had surpluses in both the Kennedy and the Clinton administrations, both of which had Keynesians in charge. I'd argue that the Keynes approach is far more conservative than the “cut taxes and spend like drunken sailors” approach of the Reagan and Bush II years; deficits are not the solution in every economic cycle.

    As for deflation, it's not nearly as bad as hyperinflation, but it creates a cycle that is hard to break out of. Keynes called it “pushing on a string”. People are reluctant to spend money because they think that if they wait, prices will be cheaper. This leads to declining business profits and layoffs. Investors don't see the point of setting money aside if returns will be low or negative. People who are living off of their investments – retirees, for example – can see their income drop to nothing. Bank CDs pay about 1% now – that's a real hardship for some people. Once in place, deflation can last a long time. We had it in the United States for almost the entire 1930s and in Japan for almost the entire 1990s.

    Volker was not a Keynesian. He was a monetarist. That approach makes a lot of sense in eras of high inflation, but high inflation is rare.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    Kennedy was of course more conservative in many ways than modern Democrats. His tax-cutting policy made sense. Then Johnson blew the budget with the war. I can't forgive Reagan for his spending, either. But Reagan seems like an amateur in the deficit department. The trailing 12 month deficit for the first year of Obama is $1.45 trillion. What do we have to show for it? A U-6 unemployment rate nearing 18%.

    Keynes may have focused on the fiscal side, but I do not see how the monetary side can be ignored. And what would Keynes say about a country like Japan, where sovereign debt is nearing 200% of GDP? Keep up the deficits? I just don't think Keynes was that stupid.

    Say what you want. I say it will all end in tears.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    Kennedy was of course more conservative in many ways than modern Democrats. His tax-cutting policy made sense. Then Johnson blew the budget with the war. I can't forgive Reagan for his spending, either. But Reagan seems like an amateur in the deficit department. The trailing 12 month deficit for the first year of Obama is $1.45 trillion. What do we have to show for it? A U-6 unemployment rate nearing 18%.

    Keynes may have focused on the fiscal side, but I do not see how the monetary side can be ignored. And what would Keynes say about a country like Japan, where sovereign debt is nearing 200% of GDP? Keep up the deficits? I just don't think Keynes was that stupid.

    Say what you want. I say it will all end in tears.