Even more extreme candidates, like Alex Tsipiras or Francois Hollande, have won national elections, only to implement policies that are similar to what their opponents would have done. There is always some volatility surrounding elections, but I don’t see how this time would be more extreme than Obama vs Bush or Obama vs Romney. It’s true that the Democratic platform is more “progressive” than it’s been in the past, but the problem is that people do not believe that the platform is credible. Everyone in Congress hates Trump and will block his actions, leading to more legislative gridlock. I am not in the habit of dismissing opinions - anything is possible. However, your argument needs to be better substantiated to be realistic.
Ignorance knows no bounds. Taleb is not a fan of modern portfolio theory and he would not consider a Trump presidency a black swan.
Taleb did say he does not like Hilary but never Trump. He might have some trades ready in case the surprise happens…Surprise here is Trump, the author of 40% tax on Chinese goods, rip up trade agreements etc…my Economics 101 is sketchy but wouldn’t these actions cause little hiccups in the US economy, which will also cause a minor hiccup in the world economy?
as to “Taleb … would not consider a Trump presidency a black swan.” this i do not know since I don’t know Taleb personally and i do not have a magic wand. But for the reasons i said above Taleb may have trades in place in case the surprise happens. To be specific, it is a surprise because the media of other nations assume that Trump will not win the election
Well, read The Black Swan and he’ll tell you how to define it, has examples of what is and what is not. Lots of misunderstandng according to him. I recommend the second edition. Has some new interesting material.
Benzo is thinking!
I would suggest everyone take time away from the keyboard, think things thru. Called subprime Q407, Trump is the largest downside risk I’ve seen since then. Reckless mentally-unstable con man in change of the world’s largest economy/military. “Oh, it’s probably nothing”. 
So many ways it goes wrong, 1) currently we are on the brink of global recession, the world says “this is getting weird, better cut back spending just a little”, bam. 2) global players brace for impact and hedge, the act of global hedging creates disturbances. 3) any economic war with China = global collapse, nobody so far has been stupid enough to disturb the symbiotic relationship between US/CN. 4) fiscal stimulus in the form of war. And 5…6…7…8…
It could be nothing, but the probability and magnitude are such that I’m f@#$@$g hedged…and I almost never hedge.
I do think the perception of a trump presidency will create volatity but the impact is likely to be small as he’s such a polarizing figure and unlikely to get anything done in Congress outside of exercising executive power and bypass the Congress.
Well if you are concerned about the market’s perception of volatility from Trump being elected, you could always look at… market implied volatility. There is only a small increase in volatility expectations around the November elections. Maybe this will change in the coming months. However, this is primarily how I derived my conclusion that, as of now, the markets are largely indifferent between the two candidates. I think the market would have been hurt much more by a Sanders Presidency, given that Sanders would probably actually follow through on some of his anti business policies.
Obama has been “in charge” of the US Economy for the last 8 years, what did he accomplish that Joe the Plumber couldnt as President?
Uhh, I would never look to the market, for what the market is missing.
Except dictators don’t follow rules.
I don’t talk about the other candidate, it’s irrelevant (binary, so anyone is better than extinction-event guy).
That said, DNC remainds me why I don’t normally follow politics. Speakers; mexicans, gay black men, a lesbian, and now a true retard…let’s desperately prove how politically correct and anti-bigot we are!! [facepalm]
I’m no political strategist, but Hillary missed it. She is positioning herself like “Trump says America is in decline, I say our best days are ahead of us!”. LOL, really? That’s a global joke, nobody believes that anymore. And the polls tell us 40% of Americans don’t even believe that anymore! Obama tried to lie about how the economy is great, but people found out. It seems like a smart move at this point to ADMIT things are NOT great, but “Trump offers no solutions, only more problems”. That is true. But continued denial is just stupid.
^ This crap is why people are ready for someone who calls BS.
Update: Elizabeth Warren was the only good part; direct, factual, no nonsense, admits the system is rigged.
Obama is about managing (accepting) US decline, not reversing it. (which is impossible).
Pocahontas was sort of factual… not entirely. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/democratic-convention-fact-check/index.html
Days before…even 1 day before the Brexit vote, the market was expecting Brexit to never materialize - people assumed the past would repeat - that the Brits would get all pissy and vote but never enough votes to actually leave the EU. CNBC, BBG and all other media put this bs number that the odds of the UK leaving the EU at less than 20% on Thursday 2PM. Our PM said yeah when you least expect it and when the market seems to be blind…that is when IT hits you in the back of the head with a baseball bat! Then what happened? The UK voted to leave the EU in the middle of the night in Eastern Time and all hell broke lose for 2 trading days.
this is a repeat of 2008 with the tables turned. Trump is playing ‘sky is falling’ like Obama re: the financial crisis. Hillary is playing ‘things are great, nothing to see here’ as McCain did.
the trump margin of victory grows every day, imo. imagine when they go head to head in the debates – bloodbath.
If you have a bag with four red balls and one white, is it possible to draw a white ball? If I said you had an 80% chance to draw a red ball, and you ended up with white, was I wrong?
you don’t seem to understand the whole point about this…The 20% odd was given YET, the market acted and assumed as if the the UK will not vote to leave the EU. But when the votes came in and they did in fact voted to leave…all hell broke lose. So my point is, you cannot look at the market or implied vol right now - can’t look at something if that something is missing that element (as PA have said above).
Maybe I am. What would have the appropriate handicapping have been? You’re suggesting the odds were not accurate?
no, i don’t know whether the odds were accurate were not. my response was addressing to Ohai’s post,
“Well if you are concerned about the market’s perception of volatility from Trump being elected, you could always look at… market implied volatility. There is only a small increase in volatility expectations around the November elections. Maybe this will change in the coming months. However, this is primarily how I derived my conclusion that, as of now, the markets are largely indifferent between the two candidates.”
My point or my opinion is that the market may not be the best indicator to predict the volatility if trump or who ever is elected because as we can see (my example to support my point) in Brexit, the market behaved as if Brexit would never materialize. The market was missing the whole side of what if Brexit did happen? So I think, if Trump gets elected, the market might go wildly down the sh%^er despite the market data might tell us otherwise.
Here, I say the market could go down the sh%^er if Trump gets elected because Trump said he would put 40% tariff on Chinese goods, rip up trade agreements, tax PE and HF managers and mgmt companies, etc which like it or not the big corps including Trump Org depend on - free markets and better access to cheaper labor and capital. Trump said he would do these if elected…then the market will react…probably negatively since those actions will not help the US economy…US economy shapes the rest of the world or at least influence them in some shape or form so we can say the markets will hit the reds. But before it actually happens the market is blind leading the blind to the cliff.
I think your interpretation could be wrong, the market could simply pricing in Hillary to be elected who is likely to continue the status quo and completely ignoring the possibility of a Trump presidency which could bring a number of uncertainties the same way market completely ignored the possibility of Brexit prior to the vote.