Does the "price into" in the sentence have the meaning of "bargaining chip","Canberra’s decision to acquire nuclear-powered submarines was priced into Australia-China ties long before the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, and his US and UK counterparts took to the podium in San Diego this week."?

  • More like "taken into account".
    – Peter
    Mar 16 at 10:17
  • 1
    What @Peter said. It's a figurative usage alluding to the idea of retailers / traders pricing in anticipated future costs they expect to pay, in order to calculate the selling price they will need to charge in order to make a profit (so businesses can operate "normally"). Note the exact usage as cited above doesn't necessarily have anything to do with finance - it might just be a matter of "diplomatic relationships". Mar 16 at 12:38

1 Answer 1


The prices on financial markets (shares, bonds, commodities etc) vary based on events. When some news happens the markets react and the prices change in response - for example a company announces poor sales and so the market reacts by their shares selling for less money. The prices in the market are based on their guesses of how things will be in the future, and they are continually adjusting based on new information.

'Priced in' in a literal sense means that the price has already taken account of this news. For example, perhaps taxes will go up next month. That is something that's been announced beforehand, and so the share prices are already adjusted to account for the change in taxes. They will not change on the day taxes actually change, because the market has already anticipated the change.

Figuratively, 'priced in' means that something has already been accounted for and the view on something will not change any further in response to it. For example:

The counter-view is that Johnson’s deceit is “priced in”. The public has accepted he plays fast with the facts, and yet support him anyway – look at the 2019 general election, when he won a big majority, and the 2016 EU referendum.

meaning that it won't change things to reveal that Johnson lies, because everybody already knows this.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .