{"items": [{"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1340087756222", "service": "gp", "text": "Is there any actual doubt that it's a coincidence? How could it be intentional?", "timestamp": 1340087756}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1340116018532", "service": "gp", "text": "Hearing people talk about it, it seemed improbable enough to them that someone probably did it on purpose. \u00a0I wanted to get a sense of how improbable it actually was. \u00a01 in 16K would be pretty strong evidence in a way that 1 in 33 or worse is not.", "timestamp": 1340116018}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1340160498215", "service": "gp", "text": "Maybe the stock was close enough for people to notice the coincidence, and so then it became a kind of self-fulling sort of thing? Enough people thinking that the government was targeting that price that therefore wanted to sell if it was above, buy if it was below? \nOr\n enough people thinking that some people might think like that (even if no one really as)? Etc\n
\n
\nNo coincidence, but not intentional.", "timestamp": 1340160498}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1340175741929", "service": "gp", "text": "That's exactly why I think the idea is absurd. What's notable about the market falling (say) 64.32? No one would have thought about that at all, so what would there be to notice? Not to mention that even if all the traders noticed, there'd be too much of a coordination problem in trying to actually target that specific price.\n
\n
\nIf I understand Jeff's comment correctly, he just wanted to know what the odds against were, but even if they had turned out to be 1 in 16K, I'd feel very, very confident in saying it was just a 1 in 16K coincidence. For one thing, coincidences like that happen all the time if you cast your net wide enough (I guess that was part of Jeff's original point).", "timestamp": 1340175741}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1340179508946", "service": "gp", "text": "Yeah, I guess I don't know how these things work. But it seemed plausible that (a) people \nwould\n notice that the price was near the date, and (b) there's no coordination problem, because if everyone believes that price is significant, it becomes significant (people want to sell when above, buy when below).\n
\n
\nJust a guess. Maybe ridiculous.", "timestamp": 1340179508}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1340180289895", "service": "gp", "text": "My point about 64.32, as an example, is that anything aside from 64.89 exactly loses the most significant digits (the year). So I find it very hard to believe they would notice it was near, because there'd be little to pick up on. I guess it's possible that people could see 64.xx and think \"gee, today is 6/4\", but that could point to anything that happened on 6/4 in any year. Not to mention that most countries (including China, I'd guess) start their dates with the day, so it would be 4/6, not 6/4. And of course, the Chinese also have their own calendar, which they might well pay more attention to when marking important dates and events (certainly they do regarding holidays). Point being, there's just no way this gets picked out as anything but noise until it's already happened.\n
\n
\nThe coordination problem is two-fold: one, the level of precision required is incredible; and two, without knowing how many other people were participating, how large of an impact each trade makes, and how much time lag there is between people's actions and when you hear about the results, it would be incredibly difficult to know exactly what to do, even knowing the goal.", "timestamp": 1340180289}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1340196387846", "service": "gp", "text": "And three, many of the agents in this coordination problem are computer programs.", "timestamp": 1340196387}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1340208275385", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n\u00a0You're right that China would usually call the date 4/6/89 and not 6/4/89. \u00a0But while there is a Chinese calendar, this event is widely known there as the \"June 4th incident\".", "timestamp": 1340208275}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1340213496813", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n\u00a0yeah, you're right", "timestamp": 1340213496}]}