It would not surprise me if they find evidence to suggest that the asteroid was formed in the kuiper belt (out past Pluto) rather than in the inner solar system. This would upset the standard theory of planet formation.
I think planets are wanderers in more than one sense. I think the wander in from interstellar space where they are formed. Our solar system is unusual because it is stable. The apparent evidence of the many planetary systems around us is that the stars are eating the planets – or we are reading the gravitational evidence wrong.
I think the stability of our system is based on the relationship between Jupiter and Saturn. They gravitationally kick out new planets spiraling inward (over millions and billions of years) and transfer energy to earth and Venus (and perhaps Mercury) arresting their inward falls.
When you read about the discovery of the nearby stars having planetary systems, they tend to have large planets very close to the star. Part of this is because that is what we can easily detect, but the point is that there are too many of unstable systems where planets are within a few million years of falling into their suns. By the law of averages, the only way we could be around to see them in this state, is if this happens a lot. Our detection ability only reaches the closest stars in our galaxy.
It may also be that the interaction of the charged particles of the solar wind with the Earth's magnetic field, adds energy to the Earth's momentum. Although ti is a low amount, operating across billions of years it might be significant. (I'm not sure I am using the correct terms here, I'm not trained in physics.) The solar wind is almost certainly tied to the moderation of the climate that occurs in thirty to thirty-five years cycles, first noted by the Dutch and commented on by Roger Bacon in the early 1600s. There is one Russian physicist who thinks that the Sun is disturbed by gravity waves producing internal changes that result in this cycle.