Slide 1

Slide 1 text

daniel martin katz michael bommarito tyler soellinger james ming chen Law on the Market? Abnormal Stock Returns and Supreme Court Decision-Making

Slide 2

Slide 2 text

Law on the Market? Abnormal Stock Returns and Supreme Court Decision-Making daniel martin katz edu | Illinois tech - chicago kent blog | ComputationalLegalStudies corp | LexPredict.com tyler soellinger james ming chen michael bommarito edu | Illinois tech - chicago kent blog | ComputationalLegalStudies corp | LexPredict.com home | michigan state law corp | LexPredict.com home | michigan state law blog | jurisdynamics.blogspot.com

Slide 3

Slide 3 text

Thank you very much for allowing us to present our work

Slide 4

Slide 4 text

Thank you very much for allowing us to present our work

Slide 5

Slide 5 text

I would like to start with a quick overview of some allied work before getting to the paper for today … https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2649726 Access Paper Here

Slide 6

Slide 6 text

In allied work, we have explored judicial prediction from a variety of different angles …

Slide 7

Slide 7 text

The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction

Slide 8

Slide 8 text

Experts, Crowds, Algorithms The Three Forms of (Legal) Prediction

Slide 9

Slide 9 text

In so much as prediction is the task in question … #MachineLearing is the method du jour

Slide 10

Slide 10 text

It is not necessarily ML alone but rather some ensemble of experts, crowds + algorithms

Slide 11

Slide 11 text

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/ 2017/05/artificial-intelligence-prevails- predicting-supreme-court-decisions Professor Katz noted that in the long term …“We believe the blend of experts, crowds, and algorithms is the secret sauce for the whole thing.” May 2nd 2017

Slide 12

Slide 12 text

No content

Slide 13

Slide 13 text

predicting the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States #SCOTUS

Slide 14

Slide 14 text

Experts

Slide 15

Slide 15 text

Columbia Law Review October, 2004 Theodore W. Ruger, Pauline T. Kim, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn Legal and Political Science Approaches to Predicting Supreme Court Decision Making The Supreme Court Forecasting Project:

Slide 16

Slide 16 text

experts

Slide 17

Slide 17 text

Case Level Prediction Justice Level Prediction 67.4% experts 58% experts From the 68 Included Cases for the 2002-2003 Supreme Court Term

Slide 18

Slide 18 text

these experts probably overfit

Slide 19

Slide 19 text

they fit to the noise and not the signal

Slide 20

Slide 20 text

No content

Slide 21

Slide 21 text

if this were finance this would be trading worse than S&P500

Slide 22

Slide 22 text

#NoiseTrading

Slide 23

Slide 23 text

#BuffetChallenge

Slide 24

Slide 24 text

#BuffetChallenge

Slide 25

Slide 25 text

like many other forms human endeavor law is full of 
 noise predictors …

Slide 26

Slide 26 text

from a pure forecasting standpoint

Slide 27

Slide 27 text

the best known SCOTUS predictor is

Slide 28

Slide 28 text

No content

Slide 29

Slide 29 text

the law version of superforecasting

Slide 30

Slide 30 text

No content

Slide 31

Slide 31 text

Crowds

Slide 32

Slide 32 text

not enough crowd based decision making in institutions

Slide 33

Slide 33 text

No content

Slide 34

Slide 34 text

“Software developers were asked on two separate days to estimate the completion time for a given task, the hours they projected differed by 71%, on average. When pathologists made two assessments of the severity of biopsy results, the correlation between their ratings was only .61 (out of a perfect 1.0), indicating that they made inconsistent diagnoses quite frequently. Judgments made by different people are even more likely to diverge.”

Slide 35

Slide 35 text

crowds

Slide 36

Slide 36 text

No content

Slide 37

Slide 37 text

No content

Slide 38

Slide 38 text

No content

Slide 39

Slide 39 text

https://fantasyscotus.lexpredict.com/case/list/ We can generate Crowd Sourced Predictions

Slide 40

Slide 40 text

not all members of crowd are made equal

Slide 41

Slide 41 text

we maintain a ‘supercrowd’ which is the top n of predictors up to time t-1 (i.e. a Condorcet Jury)

Slide 42

Slide 42 text

the ‘supercrowd’ outperforms the overall crowd (and even the best single player)

Slide 43

Slide 43 text

7000+ players 600,000+ predictions From 2011-2017 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3085710 Crowdsourcing Accurately and Robustly Predicts Supreme Court Decisions

Slide 44

Slide 44 text

No content

Slide 45

Slide 45 text

Brief Aside About Crowd Sourced Prediction #LegalCrowdSourcing

Slide 46

Slide 46 text

(most pundits did not identify as a serious candidate him until mid-January 2017) Neil Gorsuch was #1 o n o u r F a n t a s y Platform 12 Days after Donald Trump was elected President (i.e Nov 20)

Slide 47

Slide 47 text

#FantasySCOTUS

Slide 48

Slide 48 text

No content

Slide 49

Slide 49 text

Algorithms

Slide 50

Slide 50 text

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174698 Katz DM, Bommarito MJ II, Blackman J (2017), A General Approach for Predicting the Behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0174698.

Slide 51

Slide 51 text

Our algorithm is a special version of random forest (time evolving) http://journals.plos.org/ plosone/article?id=10.1371/ journal.pone.0174698 available at RESEARCH ARTICLE A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States Daniel Martin Katz1,2*, Michael J. Bommarito II1,2, Josh Blackman3 1 Illinois Tech - Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL, United States of America, 2 CodeX - The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, Stanford, CA, United States of America, 3 South Texas College of Law Houston, Houston, TX, United States of America * [email protected] Abstract Building on developments in machine learning and prior work in the science of judicial pre- diction, we construct a model designed to predict the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States in a generalized, out-of-sample context. To do so, we develop a time-evolving random forest classifier that leverages unique feature engineering to predict more than 240,000 justice votes and 28,000 cases outcomes over nearly two centuries (1816-2015). Using only data available prior to decision, our model outperforms null (baseline) models at both the justice and case level under both parametric and non-parametric tests. Over nearly two centuries, we achieve 70.2% accuracy at the case outcome level and 71.9% at the jus- tice vote level. More recently, over the past century, we outperform an in-sample optimized null model by nearly 5%. Our performance is consistent with, and improves on the general level of prediction demonstrated by prior work; however, our model is distinctive because it can be applied out-of-sample to the entire past and future of the Court, not a single term. Our results represent an important advance for the science of quantitative legal prediction and portend a range of other potential applications. Introduction As the leaves begin to fall each October, the first Monday marks the beginning of another term for the Supreme Court of the United States. Each term brings with it a series of challenging, important cases that cover legal questions as diverse as tax law, freedom of speech, patent law, administrative law, equal protection, and environmental law. In many instances, the Court’s decisions are meaningful not just for the litigants per se, but for society as a whole. Unsurprisingly, predicting the behavior of the Court is one of the great pastimes for legal and political observers. Every year, newspapers, television and radio pundits, academic jour- nals, law reviews, magazines, blogs, and tweets predict how the Court will rule in a particular case. Will the Justices vote based on the political preferences of the President who appointed them or form a coalition along other dimensions? Will the Court counter expectations with an unexpected ruling? PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698 April 12, 2017 1 / 18 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Katz DM, Bommarito MJ, II, Blackman J (2017) A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0174698. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698 Editor: Luı ´s A. Nunes Amaral, Northwestern University, UNITED STATES Received: January 17, 2017 Accepted: March 13, 2017 Published: April 12, 2017 Copyright: © 2017 Katz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: Data and replication code are available on Github at the following URL: https://github.com/mjbommar/scotus-predict-v2/. Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Competing interests: All Authors are Members of a LexPredict, LLC which provides consulting services to various legal industry stakeholders. We received no financial contributions from LexPredict or anyone else for this paper. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Slide 52

Slide 52 text

No content

Slide 53

Slide 53 text

We call this a ‘general’ model of #SCOTUS Prediction RESEARCH ARTICLE A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States Daniel Martin Katz1,2*, Michael J. Bommarito II1,2, Josh Blackman3 1 Illinois Tech - Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL, United States of America, 2 CodeX - The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, Stanford, CA, United States of America, 3 South Texas College of Law Houston, Houston, TX, United States of America * [email protected] Abstract Building on developments in machine learning and prior work in the science of judicial pre- diction, we construct a model designed to predict the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States in a generalized, out-of-sample context. To do so, we develop a time-evolving random forest classifier that leverages unique feature engineering to predict more than 240,000 justice votes and 28,000 cases outcomes over nearly two centuries (1816-2015). Using only data available prior to decision, our model outperforms null (baseline) models at both the justice and case level under both parametric and non-parametric tests. Over nearly two centuries, we achieve 70.2% accuracy at the case outcome level and 71.9% at the jus- tice vote level. More recently, over the past century, we outperform an in-sample optimized null model by nearly 5%. Our performance is consistent with, and improves on the general level of prediction demonstrated by prior work; however, our model is distinctive because it can be applied out-of-sample to the entire past and future of the Court, not a single term. Our results represent an important advance for the science of quantitative legal prediction and portend a range of other potential applications. Introduction As the leaves begin to fall each October, the first Monday marks the beginning of another term for the Supreme Court of the United States. Each term brings with it a series of challenging, important cases that cover legal questions as diverse as tax law, freedom of speech, patent law, administrative law, equal protection, and environmental law. In many instances, the Court’s decisions are meaningful not just for the litigants per se, but for society as a whole. Unsurprisingly, predicting the behavior of the Court is one of the great pastimes for legal and political observers. Every year, newspapers, television and radio pundits, academic jour- nals, law reviews, magazines, blogs, and tweets predict how the Court will rule in a particular case. Will the Justices vote based on the political preferences of the President who appointed them or form a coalition along other dimensions? Will the Court counter expectations with an unexpected ruling? PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698 April 12, 2017 1 / 18 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Katz DM, Bommarito MJ, II, Blackman J (2017) A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0174698. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698 Editor: Luı ´s A. Nunes Amaral, Northwestern University, UNITED STATES Received: January 17, 2017 Accepted: March 13, 2017 Published: April 12, 2017 Copyright: © 2017 Katz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: Data and replication code are available on Github at the following URL: https://github.com/mjbommar/scotus-predict-v2/. Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Competing interests: All Authors are Members of a LexPredict, LLC which provides consulting services to various legal industry stakeholders. We received no financial contributions from LexPredict or anyone else for this paper. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Slide 54

Slide 54 text

Not just interested in accuracy over a short time window RESEARCH ARTICLE A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States Daniel Martin Katz1,2*, Michael J. Bommarito II1,2, Josh Blackman3 1 Illinois Tech - Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL, United States of America, 2 CodeX - The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, Stanford, CA, United States of America, 3 South Texas College of Law Houston, Houston, TX, United States of America * [email protected] Abstract Building on developments in machine learning and prior work in the science of judicial pre- diction, we construct a model designed to predict the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States in a generalized, out-of-sample context. To do so, we develop a time-evolving random forest classifier that leverages unique feature engineering to predict more than 240,000 justice votes and 28,000 cases outcomes over nearly two centuries (1816-2015). Using only data available prior to decision, our model outperforms null (baseline) models at both the justice and case level under both parametric and non-parametric tests. Over nearly two centuries, we achieve 70.2% accuracy at the case outcome level and 71.9% at the jus- tice vote level. More recently, over the past century, we outperform an in-sample optimized null model by nearly 5%. Our performance is consistent with, and improves on the general level of prediction demonstrated by prior work; however, our model is distinctive because it can be applied out-of-sample to the entire past and future of the Court, not a single term. Our results represent an important advance for the science of quantitative legal prediction and portend a range of other potential applications. Introduction As the leaves begin to fall each October, the first Monday marks the beginning of another term for the Supreme Court of the United States. Each term brings with it a series of challenging, important cases that cover legal questions as diverse as tax law, freedom of speech, patent law, administrative law, equal protection, and environmental law. In many instances, the Court’s decisions are meaningful not just for the litigants per se, but for society as a whole. Unsurprisingly, predicting the behavior of the Court is one of the great pastimes for legal and political observers. Every year, newspapers, television and radio pundits, academic jour- nals, law reviews, magazines, blogs, and tweets predict how the Court will rule in a particular case. Will the Justices vote based on the political preferences of the President who appointed them or form a coalition along other dimensions? Will the Court counter expectations with an unexpected ruling? PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698 April 12, 2017 1 / 18 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Katz DM, Bommarito MJ, II, Blackman J (2017) A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0174698. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698 Editor: Luı ´s A. Nunes Amaral, Northwestern University, UNITED STATES Received: January 17, 2017 Accepted: March 13, 2017 Published: April 12, 2017 Copyright: © 2017 Katz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: Data and replication code are available on Github at the following URL: https://github.com/mjbommar/scotus-predict-v2/. Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Competing interests: All Authors are Members of a LexPredict, LLC which provides consulting services to various legal industry stakeholders. We received no financial contributions from LexPredict or anyone else for this paper. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Slide 55

Slide 55 text

A locally tuned model will typically lead to overfitting as the dynamics shift RESEARCH ARTICLE A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States Daniel Martin Katz1,2*, Michael J. Bommarito II1,2, Josh Blackman3 1 Illinois Tech - Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL, United States of America, 2 CodeX - The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, Stanford, CA, United States of America, 3 South Texas College of Law Houston, Houston, TX, United States of America * [email protected] Abstract Building on developments in machine learning and prior work in the science of judicial pre- diction, we construct a model designed to predict the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States in a generalized, out-of-sample context. To do so, we develop a time-evolving random forest classifier that leverages unique feature engineering to predict more than 240,000 justice votes and 28,000 cases outcomes over nearly two centuries (1816-2015). Using only data available prior to decision, our model outperforms null (baseline) models at both the justice and case level under both parametric and non-parametric tests. Over nearly two centuries, we achieve 70.2% accuracy at the case outcome level and 71.9% at the jus- tice vote level. More recently, over the past century, we outperform an in-sample optimized null model by nearly 5%. Our performance is consistent with, and improves on the general level of prediction demonstrated by prior work; however, our model is distinctive because it can be applied out-of-sample to the entire past and future of the Court, not a single term. Our results represent an important advance for the science of quantitative legal prediction and portend a range of other potential applications. Introduction As the leaves begin to fall each October, the first Monday marks the beginning of another term for the Supreme Court of the United States. Each term brings with it a series of challenging, important cases that cover legal questions as diverse as tax law, freedom of speech, patent law, administrative law, equal protection, and environmental law. In many instances, the Court’s decisions are meaningful not just for the litigants per se, but for society as a whole. Unsurprisingly, predicting the behavior of the Court is one of the great pastimes for legal and political observers. Every year, newspapers, television and radio pundits, academic jour- nals, law reviews, magazines, blogs, and tweets predict how the Court will rule in a particular case. Will the Justices vote based on the political preferences of the President who appointed them or form a coalition along other dimensions? Will the Court counter expectations with an unexpected ruling? PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698 April 12, 2017 1 / 18 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Katz DM, Bommarito MJ, II, Blackman J (2017) A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0174698. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698 Editor: Luı ´s A. Nunes Amaral, Northwestern University, UNITED STATES Received: January 17, 2017 Accepted: March 13, 2017 Published: April 12, 2017 Copyright: © 2017 Katz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: Data and replication code are available on Github at the following URL: https://github.com/mjbommar/scotus-predict-v2/. Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Competing interests: All Authors are Members of a LexPredict, LLC which provides consulting services to various legal industry stakeholders. We received no financial contributions from LexPredict or anyone else for this paper. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Slide 56

Slide 56 text

We want a model that is robust to a large number of known dynamics … RESEARCH ARTICLE A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States Daniel Martin Katz1,2*, Michael J. Bommarito II1,2, Josh Blackman3 1 Illinois Tech - Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL, United States of America, 2 CodeX - The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, Stanford, CA, United States of America, 3 South Texas College of Law Houston, Houston, TX, United States of America * [email protected] Abstract Building on developments in machine learning and prior work in the science of judicial pre- diction, we construct a model designed to predict the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States in a generalized, out-of-sample context. To do so, we develop a time-evolving random forest classifier that leverages unique feature engineering to predict more than 240,000 justice votes and 28,000 cases outcomes over nearly two centuries (1816-2015). Using only data available prior to decision, our model outperforms null (baseline) models at both the justice and case level under both parametric and non-parametric tests. Over nearly two centuries, we achieve 70.2% accuracy at the case outcome level and 71.9% at the jus- tice vote level. More recently, over the past century, we outperform an in-sample optimized null model by nearly 5%. Our performance is consistent with, and improves on the general level of prediction demonstrated by prior work; however, our model is distinctive because it can be applied out-of-sample to the entire past and future of the Court, not a single term. Our results represent an important advance for the science of quantitative legal prediction and portend a range of other potential applications. Introduction As the leaves begin to fall each October, the first Monday marks the beginning of another term for the Supreme Court of the United States. Each term brings with it a series of challenging, important cases that cover legal questions as diverse as tax law, freedom of speech, patent law, administrative law, equal protection, and environmental law. In many instances, the Court’s decisions are meaningful not just for the litigants per se, but for society as a whole. Unsurprisingly, predicting the behavior of the Court is one of the great pastimes for legal and political observers. Every year, newspapers, television and radio pundits, academic jour- nals, law reviews, magazines, blogs, and tweets predict how the Court will rule in a particular case. Will the Justices vote based on the political preferences of the President who appointed them or form a coalition along other dimensions? Will the Court counter expectations with an unexpected ruling? PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698 April 12, 2017 1 / 18 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Katz DM, Bommarito MJ, II, Blackman J (2017) A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0174698. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698 Editor: Luı ´s A. Nunes Amaral, Northwestern University, UNITED STATES Received: January 17, 2017 Accepted: March 13, 2017 Published: April 12, 2017 Copyright: © 2017 Katz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: Data and replication code are available on Github at the following URL: https://github.com/mjbommar/scotus-predict-v2/. Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Competing interests: All Authors are Members of a LexPredict, LLC which provides consulting services to various legal industry stakeholders. We received no financial contributions from LexPredict or anyone else for this paper. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Slide 57

Slide 57 text

243,882 28,009 Case Outcomes Justice Votes Current Version of #PredictSCOTUS 1816-2015

Slide 58

Slide 58 text

Experts, Crowds, Algorithms

Slide 59

Slide 59 text

expert forecast crowd forecast learning problem is to discover how to blend streams of intelligence algorithm forecast ensemble method ensemble model

Slide 60

Slide 60 text

expert forecast crowd forecast learning problem is to discover how to blend streams of intelligence algorithm forecast ensemble method ensemble model via back testing we can learn the weights to apply for particular problems

Slide 61

Slide 61 text

All of this is the path which led us to this paper …

Slide 62

Slide 62 text

No content

Slide 63

Slide 63 text

Law on the Market

Slide 64

Slide 64 text

When we would present this work on #SCOTUS Prediction folks would ask us “why do I care about marginal improvements in prediction ? “

Slide 65

Slide 65 text

Well at a very minimum — if you could predict the cases you could perhaps trade on them in the relevant securities market …

Slide 66

Slide 66 text

In other words, given our ability to offer forecasts of judicial outcomes, we wondered if this information could inform an event driven trading strategy ?

Slide 67

Slide 67 text

http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05751 available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2649726

Slide 68

Slide 68 text

We call this idea “Law on the Market” LOTM

Slide 69

Slide 69 text

No content

Slide 70

Slide 70 text

“Law on the Market” LOTM

Slide 71

Slide 71 text

A Motivating Example Myriad Genetics NASDAQ: MYGN Market Cap of ~$3 billion+

Slide 72

Slide 72 text

Myraid Genetics “Myriad employs a number of proprietary technologies that permit doctors and patients to understand the genetic basis of human disease and the role that genes play in the onset, progression and treatment of disease.”

Slide 73

Slide 73 text

Myraid Genetics “Myriad was the subject of scrutiny after it became involved in a lengthy lawsuit over its controversial patenting practices” which including the patenting of human gene sequences ....

Slide 74

Slide 74 text

No content

Slide 75

Slide 75 text

June 13, 2013 Supreme Court Offers this Decision ~10:05am

Slide 76

Slide 76 text

Initial Media Reports and Initial Trading 11:48am

Slide 77

Slide 77 text

Initial Media Reports Early Afternoon “In early afternoon trading Thursday, Myriad shares were up 5.4 percent, or $2.36, at $35.73.”

Slide 78

Slide 78 text

Final Media Reports

Slide 79

Slide 79 text

Final Media Reports

Slide 80

Slide 80 text

9:30am Open

Slide 81

Slide 81 text

10:00am SCOTUS

Slide 82

Slide 82 text

11:05am MYGN Trades UP

Slide 83

Slide 83 text

2:15pm MYGN is Off its Daily Peak but still up

Slide 84

Slide 84 text

Day 1 Close MYGN is Off Nearly 10% from Open and 20% from Daily High

Slide 85

Slide 85 text

Day 2 the Sell Off Continues

Slide 86

Slide 86 text

A Good Time to Buy an Option :)

Slide 87

Slide 87 text

No content

Slide 88

Slide 88 text

No content

Slide 89

Slide 89 text

So these examples represent a form of existence proof …

Slide 90

Slide 90 text

But perhaps they are rare and anachronistic cases …?

Slide 91

Slide 91 text

No content

Slide 92

Slide 92 text

One obvious challenge is the prospect that this information is already incorporated into the price of the relevant security #EfficientMarketHypothesis #Fama #EMH

Slide 93

Slide 93 text

In allied fields of human endeavor, there are fairly rapid market responses to changes in the information environment

Slide 94

Slide 94 text

This all presupposes a rigorous information and modeling environment — that is historically lacking for questions of legal prediction #QuantitativeLegalPrediction #LegalAnalytics #FinLegalTech

Slide 95

Slide 95 text

No content

Slide 96

Slide 96 text

Theoretical + Empirical Questions

Slide 97

Slide 97 text

Market Incorporation Hypothesis Are judicial decisions already reflected in the share price ? (If this were true - we would rarely see market move post decision)

Slide 98

Slide 98 text

How General Are These Specific Examples? Theoretical + Empirical Questions (In other words, is this a general phenomenon ?)

Slide 99

Slide 99 text

What is the nature of the signal incorporation environment ? (In other words, what are the dynamics associated with does the market response ?) Theoretical + Empirical Questions

Slide 100

Slide 100 text

No content

Slide 101

Slide 101 text

Methods

Slide 102

Slide 102 text

(1) Coding / PreProcessing (2) Candidate LOTM Events (3) Formal Evaluation Using CAPM (market model of returns) (4) Evaluate Speed of Incorporation and Related Informational Dynamics

Slide 103

Slide 103 text

(1) Coding / PreProcessing We reviewed and coded 1,363 total cases decided over the period in questions. We asked a simple question - could this case plausibly impact a publicly traded security ?

Slide 104

Slide 104 text

1,363 total cases reviewed in our sample, we identified 211 candidate LOTM cases plausibly affecting one or more firms or sectors. (these included parties to the case but also third parties) (2) Candidate LOTM Events

Slide 105

Slide 105 text

All Data & Code is Available Here^ ^Other than the WRDS Data which is *not* open source but can be obtained from Wharton https://github.com/mjbommar/law-on-the-market https://wrds-web.wharton.upenn.edu/wrds/

Slide 106

Slide 106 text

(3) Formal Evaluation Using CAPM (market model of returns)

Slide 107

Slide 107 text

Abnormal Returns Common approach is to use index as baseline and seek to identify statistically significant deviations from that baseline We want to isolate the effect of the event from other general market movements

Slide 108

Slide 108 text

Formalization of CAPM in Appendix A

Slide 109

Slide 109 text

Formalization of CAPM in Appendix A

Slide 110

Slide 110 text

Formalization of CAPM in Appendix A

Slide 111

Slide 111 text

Implementation ‘erer’

Slide 112

Slide 112 text

From a methods standpoint, our approach is to estimation is extremely standard (The Higher Frequency data is the interesting part of the paper)

Slide 113

Slide 113 text

Interday studies, however, face a difficult and unavoidable tradeoff: either a researcher must rely upon relatively few data points, or they must collect data over longer durations in order to generate a sufficient statistical sample. Nearly every event study in law,and the vast majority of analysis in finance, leverages data with at most daily frequency.

Slide 114

Slide 114 text

This Paper Leverages 5 Minute Data -5 Days, +5 Days much higher frequency than most papers in literature

Slide 115

Slide 115 text

SOME RESULTS

Slide 116

Slide 116 text

Summary Results

Slide 117

Slide 117 text

Market Cap

Slide 118

Slide 118 text

Some Additional Cases

Slide 119

Slide 119 text

(4) Evaluate Speed of Incorporation and Related Informational Dynamics

Slide 120

Slide 120 text

Speed of Information Incorporation

Slide 121

Slide 121 text

This is very slow … Perhaps the real action is in the options market ?

Slide 122

Slide 122 text

Relationship Between Oral Argument and Decision

Slide 123

Slide 123 text

(1) We follow the convention (Fama French) and use log returns (2) If you believe in Fama French than we give you the Pearson but we also show the non-parametric as well (aka Spearman) (3) Pearson and Spearman offer a similar story

Slide 124

Slide 124 text

No Clear Directional Effect Some Level of is magnitude / volatility based impact

Slide 125

Slide 125 text

Yet only as a precursor to future movement (volatility) but not the direction of that future movement Oral argument appears to update the information space From a trading standpoint, this counsels a volatility straddle but the case for more direct options is less clear

Slide 126

Slide 126 text

In conclusion, we believe that this research raises many questions and justifies a range of future work in the area

Slide 127

Slide 127 text

Future Work Real Trading Strategy Analysis Other Classes of Litigation Events 8k’s and Docket Arbitrage Higher and Lower Order Analysis Litigation Reserves, etc.

Slide 128

Slide 128 text

Real Trading Strategy Analysis Not Enough to be Able to Predict … Need to track real or synthetic trades

Slide 129

Slide 129 text

Other Classes of Litigation Events 8k’s and Docket Arbitrage

Slide 130

Slide 130 text

Litigation Funding

Slide 131

Slide 131 text

Other Classes of Litigation Events Litigation Funding and Reserves Litigation Reserves

Slide 132

Slide 132 text

Law on the Market? Abnormal Stock Returns and Supreme Court Decision-Making daniel martin katz edu | Illinois tech - chicago kent blog | ComputationalLegalStudies corp | LexPredict.com tyler soellinger james ming chen michael bommarito edu | Illinois tech - chicago kent blog | ComputationalLegalStudies corp | LexPredict.com home | michigan state law corp | LexPredict.com home | michigan state law blog | jurisdynamics.blogspot.com