Even Trump’s Tweets Don’t Have a Perfect Hit Rate

There’s a persistent belief in markets that information equals edge.

If you just had the right signal…
the right headline…
the right tweet…

you’d win consistently.

But reality doesn’t support that.

You’ll always hear the same examples:

• the oil comments that moved crude

• the trade war posts that hit equities

• the “whale” moments that triggered immediate reactions

And yes — those happened.

They were real.
They moved markets.

But here’s what gets ignored:

There were many more tweets that didn’t do anything.

Same topic.
Same tone.
Same intent.

No move.
No follow-through.
No edge.

The market simply absorbed it.

This is the part people don’t want to confront.

Because it breaks the illusion.

If even something as direct, as visible, and as powerful as that
doesn’t produce consistent outcomes…

then what exactly are you copying?

What people are really doing is this:

They isolate the few moments that worked,
and build a narrative around them.

They point to a “whale.”
They point to “insider flow.”
They point to “someone who knew.”

And sometimes they’re right.

But they’re only seeing the visible wins.

They’re not seeing:

• the times it didn’t move

• the times it moved the other way

• the times it worked briefly, then failed

So even if there is an informational edge…

it’s not clean.

It’s not consistent.
It’s not something you can blindly follow.

And more importantly:

Even the people closest to that information
don’t operate with certainty.

They take hits too.