Actually, I would like to give an example using stock earnings. Before the last earnings event the implied move was 10%. The event was a 25% move. This earnings the implied move is 20%. There was an increase of 10% which is = S + N. How do I measure S and N?
S + N = 20%, this is what you observe. You can't measure S and N, you can only guess about them, hopefully with better than random accuracy.
I this case you have conflicting information. The fact that this quarter's implied move is greater than last quarter's implied move inclines you to guess it is an over-reaction and the actual expected move is between 10% and 20%. But the fact that it is less than last quarter's actual move inclines you to bet that the actual move will be between 20% and 25%. Both of these predictions are things you might expect to be borne out when averaging over hundreds of events, not something reliable every time.
This is ultimately an empirical question to be investigated from past data. There could be reasons you have the opposite effect, many moves tend to be under-reactions. The only value of thinking about shrinkage is the knowledge that it works in many similar situations, so it's less likely to be a random pattern thrown up by data mining (that is, if it turns out to exist in the data) than some pattern without broader support.
. It looks like people are really enjoying your posts. Keep them coming!