After last week’s holiday shortened the trading week, one could imagine that the markets will enter a time of sleepy quiet. That would be a dangerous assumption to make.

In reality, there has been intense speculating and expectations about the market’s returns in 2017 for a variety of reasons. Firstly, there is the ongoing question of what a Trump presidency will mean for equity returns. Many politically charged opinions have floated around, but the truth is there is no financial certainty about how stocks will perform. Hints at legislative and executive orders have already caused massive changes in fortune for several sectors; tech stocks are down with the worry that immigration controls will inhibit their ability to keep labor costs down. Tech stocks are also hit by the worry that a trade war with China will cause growth drivers in Asia to recede–Apple (AAPL) has already been singled out by Chinese officials as a possible target if a trade war begins.

Meanwhile, the financial sector has been booming with the expectation that Trump will raise interest rates, lower regulation, and create an environment that will cause more demand for investment bank activities. The reality of how Trump’s presidency will impact investment banks and retail banks is unknown, but the fact is that the Federal Reserve has wanted to raise inflation for quite some time, and it seems that Trump has a similar goal. With political and financial forces working towards the same goal, the market seems to expect it as all but guaranteed.

Behind this political backdrop, recent macroeconomic data is setting the stage for how 2016 will close. Many are looking for any sign that consumer activity has changed since before the election, but it’s still too early for the data to reflect that. Some exceptions exist, but they don’t really show anything definitive.

The only post-election data we have on consumers so far worth much is the U.S. PMI Services Index from Markit Economics. This is not the preferred PMI measurement and many mainstream economists ignore it. Its value to macroeconomic quantitative investment funds is debatable, since few have publicly endorsed it and the methodologies behind these funds is by nature opaque and closed to the public. Still, Markit’s data (for what it’s worth) showed a roughly stable reading: 54.7 in November versus 54.8 in October. If this data has any value, it is indicating that there is no reason to believe American consumers are changing anything significant in their behavior–at least not yet.

There are other data points in Markit’s report that may tell a more nuanced tale, but we should leave the report as it is, because putting too much weight on one report will skew our viewpoint too much. After all, financial analysts are specifically tasked with creating a mosaic that is created by stitching together the viewpoints, data points, and reports of several sources. We cannot depend too much on just Markit.

But there’s not much else yet. An analyst needs to wait for data from the Department of Commerce on GDP growth (that will have to wait until January at the earliest), data from the National Association of Realtors on home buying activity, data from the ISM on manufacturing activity and supplier costs, data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis on employment, wages, trade, and so on. In other words, it’s too early to form an opinion about how 2016 is going to end up and whether Trump’s victory actually has changed anything.

This might seem like an obvious point. It is. But it bears repeating because analysts do not want to make the very public and humiliating mistakes that economists made when it came to Brexit. Economists warned of an immediate slowdown in several parts of the economy. Respected voices of authority warned of a stock market crash, a slowdown in manufacturing activity, a worsening of the balance of trade, an immediate pullback of corporate activity in London, a decline in exports to Europe, and a fall in the British pound. Analysts and economists warned these events would happen swiftly and be visible quite early on.

Many publications such as the BBC, The Economist, The Guardian, and so on have had to backtrack from this “doom and gloom” after many of these forecasts did not come to fruition. The only one that did happen–a decline in the British pound–doesn’t have an economically negative impact in all cases (especially since currency is regarded as economically neutral in most theories).

Analysts, particularly if investing with a macro economically themed world view, cannot stand to make these mistakes. Presumably some did with Brexit, betting on a long-term stock decline that didn’t happen (at least in native currency terms), and probably some are doing so with Trump’s victory (betting on another stock decline that is the opposite of what’s really happening). The moral from Brexit is that black swan events like Trump do not always have the result that makes the most sense at first glance. If we want to make bets on black swan events, we need to go a bit deeper in our data collection to figure out what the true effects of these events will be.