(Replying to PARENT post)

Why is Taleb getting all this mainstream attention? The finance guys have been aware of fail tail distributions all along.

As Eugene Fama points out on his website... http://www.dimensional.com/famafrench/2009/03/qa-confidence-...

"Half of my 1964 Ph.D. thesis is tests of market efficiency, and the other half is a detailed examination of the distribution of stock returns. Mandelbrot is right. The distribution is fat-tailed relative to the normal distribution. In other words, extreme returns occur much more often than would be expected if returns were normal. There was lots of interest in this issue for about ten years. Then academics lost interest. The reason is that most of what we do in terms of portfolio theory and models of risk and expected return works for Mandelbrot's stable distribution class, as well as for the normal distribution (which is in fact a member of the stable class)."

๐Ÿ‘คperkoff๐Ÿ•‘16y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

The finance guys may have been aware of it, but their actions were clearly not in line with this knowledge as evidence by the year 2008.

From the article you linked: "None of this implies, however, that the existence of outliers undermines modern portfolio theory or asset pricing theory."

In fact, that's exactly what it does. This is what happens when you build houses on top of sand.

๐Ÿ‘คoakmac๐Ÿ•‘16y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Why is Taleb getting all this mainstream attention?

He's telling people that "common knowledge" in a particularly despised sector of our economy is not only wrong, but downright idiotic.

And he's presenting it in a way such that Joe the Plumber can feel like he groks it, even if he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of really understanding what's been happening here.

Not that Taleb's altogether wrong - Eugene Fama may be very aware of the limitations and caveats implicit in risk measurements, but it wasn't Fama that got caught pants down screwing around for billions with an asset class that he didn't understand, was it?

What academics understand about the market often has very little to do with what real traders and banks will do in it. Taleb has valid criticisms against the real players, who were freaking idiots in a lot of ways, but he's presenting them as if they're criticisms against the establishment as a whole, which is a bit unfair, but makes for a good publicity play.

Smart move, if you ask me. Nobody would know or care who the hell he is if he hadn't made such a fuss over this stuff.

๐Ÿ‘คewjordan๐Ÿ•‘16y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

My recollection of a mathematical finance course I took was that early on we spent about 30 minutes going through the caveats you mention and that were covered in the article, and then they were promptly forgotten or ignored for the entire rest of the semester. I always found that very odd, particularly considering that the course was the start of what was considered (I think) a pretty good MA in Mathematical Finance, with a lot of alumni ending up at well known places on Wall Street: http://www.math.columbia.edu/department/mafn/page5.html
๐Ÿ‘คwmorein๐Ÿ•‘16y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Why is Taleb getting all this mainstream attention? - my (partial) answer is that he is ambiguous enough so that everyone can write his own interpretation and the conversation is going on. This is very much alike the web 2.0 thing. And it is what Henry Jenkins calls 'spreadable media'.
๐Ÿ‘คzby๐Ÿ•‘16y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0