Actually Mav-- if you take the definition from the person accredited to the Black Swan Theory-- Taleb--- you are incorrect: "What we call here a Black Swan (and capitalize it) is an event with the following three attributes. First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries an extreme impact. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/books/chapters/0422-1st-tale.html
That is exactly the definition I gave for it. All outliers are not black swans. But, black swans are outliers. The two terms are not mutually inclusive.
Actually what you said was that outliers are expected to happen from time to time... this is in contrast to Taleb who states a Black Swan is an outlier specifically since it is outside the realm of expextations DUE TO NOTHING that happened in the past can point to it occuring. And according to Taleb- thru inference we can conclude he believes not all outliers are black swans because not all result in extreme consequences... this again in contrast to your variation. I'm merely pointing out your view is indeed different from Taleb...neither right or wrong in a generic sense.
Well, the word outlier can be very subjective in meaning. I would argue the move we just had in long bonds from 122 to 140 in a single month is an outlier. The avg monthly move in bonds is probably 2 to 3 handles, not 18. But was that move a black swan? No, not by my definition or Taleb's. Outliers are very common. Especially around earnings season for stocks. The move in the past week by the Swiss Franc was also an outlier. Not a black swan though.
someone on ET posted a list of possible black swan events. I would appreciate it if someone would publish the link.
not true. someone can have an imagination and come up with a list. the list was posted on an ET thread.