legal to finance, finance to legal, concept, theory, practice

 You're asking for the legal terms that correspond to "before the fact" and "after the fact." Here are the commonly used terms:

Before the Fact:

• Accessory before the fact: In criminal law, this refers to someone who aids, abets, counsels, or commands another in the commission of a felony, but is not present when the crime is committed. They are considered as guilty as the principal offender in many jurisdictions.
• You might also encounter the Latin term "ante factum," although it's less common in everyday legal language.

After the Fact:

• Accessory after the fact: This refers to someone who, knowing that a felony has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon to hinder their apprehension, prosecution, or punishment. This is a separate and often lesser offense than being an accessory before the fact or the principal offender.
• Ex post facto: This Latin term literally means "after the fact" and has a very specific and important legal meaning, particularly in constitutional law. An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before¹ the enactment of the law. For example, it could criminalize an act that was legal when it was committed, increase the penalty for a crime after it was committed, or alter the rules of evidence to make conviction easier after the fact. Ex post facto laws are generally prohibited under the U.S. Constitution in criminal matters.

So, while "before the fact" aligns with "accessory before the fact," and "after the fact" can relate to "accessory after the fact," the term "ex post facto" carries a specific legal weight concerning the retroactivity of laws, especially in criminal contexts.

That's a really insightful point. While the literal translation of "ipso facto" aligns with the idea of facts speaking for themselves, the legal application often carries a more specific and technical weight.

Here's why legal dictionaries might offer nuanced or different translations:

• Automatic Legal Consequence: In law, "ipso facto" often signifies that a particular legal consequence automatically follows from a specific fact or event, without the need for further action or proof. For example, a contract might state that if a party goes bankrupt, the contract is ipso facto terminated. This isn't just that the bankruptcy is a fact; it's that this fact immediately and legally triggers the termination.
• Predetermined Legal Relationship: Legal definitions often emphasize the predetermined nature of this relationship within a legal framework (like a contract, statute, or common law principle). The consequence isn't just a logical inference from the facts; it's a legally established outcome.
• Efficiency and Avoidance of Further Process: The use of "ipso facto" in legal contexts can be about streamlining processes. It establishes a direct link between a fact and a legal result, potentially avoiding the need for lengthy arguments or additional legal steps to reach that conclusion.
• Distinction from General Inference: While "facts speak for themselves" can be a broader statement about drawing conclusions from evidence, "ipso facto" in law is usually tied to a specific legal rule or agreement that dictates the consequence.

Think of it this way: "The facts speak for themselves" is a general statement about the persuasiveness of evidence. "Ipso facto" in law is a more precise term indicating a legally codified and automatic consequence of a specific fact.

So, while the underlying meaning of "by the fact itself" connects them, the legal usage of "ipso facto" has evolved to carry a more technical meaning related to automatic and legally defined consequences. You're right to notice that the straightforward translation doesn't always capture the full legal significance.

Ah, I see how you're connecting these concepts within the realm of theoretical high finance and macro-level speculation. You're highlighting how the inherent truth of certain financial facts ("the facts speak for themselves") can, ipso facto, lead to specific theoretical conclusions, particularly when viewed from a purely speculative, macro perspective.

In this context:

• "The facts speak for themselves" could refer to fundamental economic data, established financial principles, or observed market behaviors that, in theory, should lead to certain outcomes. For someone focused on the theoretical underpinnings, these facts are taken as axiomatic starting points.
• "Ipso facto" then becomes the logical bridge. Given these self-evident facts and theoretical frameworks, certain speculative conclusions or potential market movements follow by the very nature of those facts and theories.

For example, a theorist might observe a fundamental economic principle (the fact). Ipso facto, based on a specific theoretical model of high finance, this fact should lead to a particular speculative opportunity or market adjustment. The focus here is on the elegant, direct relationship dictated by the theory, rather than the messy realities of practical implementation, market frictions, or unforeseen variables.

Your point about this being particularly useful for those adept at the theory, not necessarily the practical, is key. In the theoretical realm, the elegance and logical consistency of these "ipso facto" relationships can be deeply compelling. It allows for the construction of sophisticated models and speculative hypotheses based on seemingly self-evident truths within the theoretical framework. The practical application, with its inherent complexities and deviations from pure theory, becomes a secondary consideration.

It's like exploring the perfect, frictionless world of theoretical physics – the underlying principles and their direct consequences are the focus, even if the real world introduces complexities that the pure theory might not fully account for.

Absolutely. You're extending the "ipso facto" concept to the realm of behavioral finance and market psychology, highlighting how inherent biases within market structures or participant behavior can automatically generate predictable patterns, like skew or forward momentum.

Let's unpack that:

• Built-in Bias: This refers to a systematic tendency or predisposition within the market or among its participants. This bias isn't necessarily a conscious decision but rather an ingrained way of thinking or acting.
• "Ipso facto" Creates Skew or Forward Momentum: Because this bias is systematic and influences a significant portion of market activity, it inherently leads to a non-random distribution of price movements (skew) or a tendency for prices to continue moving in a certain direction (forward momentum). This occurs simply by the fact that the bias exists and influences behavior.
• Discounting Factor Not Taken into Account: You're pointing out a crucial inefficiency: market players often fail to fully account for this internally generated skew or momentum when making their decisions. They might rely on models that assume more random or normally distributed returns, thereby underestimating the impact of these inherent biases.

Consider these examples:

• Herding Behavior: If there's a built-in bias for investors to follow the crowd (herding), this can ipso facto create momentum in asset prices, as buying begets more buying (or selling begets more selling), irrespective of fundamental value. Market participants who don't account for this herding bias might misinterpret price movements or underestimate the persistence of trends.
• Loss Aversion: The well-documented psychological bias of loss aversion (the pain of a loss is felt more strongly than the pleasure of an equivalent gain) can ipso facto create a negative skew in market returns. Investors might be quicker to sell losing positions than to sell winning ones, leading to more frequent and sharper downward price movements. If this bias isn't factored into risk models, potential downside risks might be underestimated.
• Confirmation Bias: If investors have a built-in tendency to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs, this can ipso facto reinforce existing trends and potentially lead to bubbles. Contrarian viewpoints might be dismissed, and the momentum of the prevailing sentiment can build. Failing to account for this bias can lead to overconfidence in existing positions.

Your insight is that these "ipso facto" consequences of behavioral biases represent a form of predictable inefficiency. A sophisticated understanding of these theoretical biases, and their inherent tendency to create skew and momentum, should theoretically lead to the incorporation of a "discounting factor" – an adjustment in valuation or trading strategies to account for these non-random elements. Those adept at the theory of behavioral finance can identify these "ipso facto" relationships, even if their practical implementation in consistently profitable trading strategies remains challenging.