As said on this blog way back in April: I’m Adopting “Grey Pigeons”
Why? Because the concept of black swans is one of the most overwrought notions in recent financial memory. Now the Economist is getting in the act:
Gray Swans: Why Frugal Firms Keep Piling Up Cash – The Economist
Mind you, they’re seeing gray for slightly different reasons, but the logic remains: black swans are black swans for their rarity. For the market to have all sorts of little shocks, ebbs, flows, and unexpected events is status quo.
Lara Hoffmans, co-author of several bestselling New York Times investing books along with Ken Fisher, a senior editor over at Fisher Investments Marketminder, and all around mad genius, has come up with a term you should know: Grey Pigeons.
The grey pigeon is a response to the concept of a “Black Swan”, which people seem to be seeing more and more of every day.
Sorry, but Japan’s earthquake (devastating as it was in human terms), or the problems of the Middle East are not only NOT Black Swans, they’re not all that uncommon. I challenge someone—anyone—to find a year where some major geopolitical, geological, financial, or otherwise big scary event didn’t happen. The world is full of them through history—now is no different than any other, though folks always feel the present moment is “different this time”. Goodness gracious, 1998—a fabulous year for stocks—was also the year of Long Term Capital Management, among other things like the Russian Ruble problems and Asian banking issues.
As I said on Fisher Investments MarketMinder months ago, the whole point of a real black swan (if they exist at all) is that they’re hugely rare. Note that recent events did not crater the markets—they were grey pigeons.