One thing I don't see anyone mentioning, is that there is a big consensus factor at play too, which adds a bunch of randomness to news outcomes.
Take interest rates for example: Lowering rates means that money will be cheaper (good!) but that the fed see's slower economic times ahead(bad!). So now you need to put the decision on context, which adds a whole host of assumptions and estimates. Both sides have a strong logical argument for stocks moving up or down.
So you end up with traders voting with their dollars once the news drops, and it is not (practically) possible to know which group has more firing power going into the print.
It's also not uncommon for a stock to tank the moment the news drops, and then skyrocket seconds later (or the inverse). Competing theories and the winner is whoever has more money to move the stock.
Take interest rates for example: Lowering rates means that money will be cheaper (good!) but that the fed see's slower economic times ahead(bad!). So now you need to put the decision on context, which adds a whole host of assumptions and estimates. Both sides have a strong logical argument for stocks moving up or down.
So you end up with traders voting with their dollars once the news drops, and it is not (practically) possible to know which group has more firing power going into the print.
It's also not uncommon for a stock to tank the moment the news drops, and then skyrocket seconds later (or the inverse). Competing theories and the winner is whoever has more money to move the stock.