Not exactly hidden risk (which is what derivatives are for), the unkown risk is the unintended appearance of risk that is the “zero-hedge effect.” It’s really dangerous stuff because it tends to go into panic mode, which is why TBTF financials (SIFIs) undergo simulated stress tests.
Testing for the stress does not question the need for the test. (I refer to this as the intending-risk proportion.) Again, PM Cameron says he did not expect a Brexit, meaning then that he did not intend the risk, having then a random-like attributive value that has an exculpatory affect. The effect is clearly measurable–a gap-down, margin-call correction for equity values–but the affect is also derived to methodically exculpate the risk value, lending into larceny in late order, which is the confiscation of property by means referred to as alpha risk–the free market. This then creates a “sense” of inefficiency that TBTF capitalists are all too glad to exploit, advancing the logic of TBTF, which lends into larceny.
Given the ambi-valence of the values, maybe enough disaffected Democrats will cross over to Republicans to support free-market advocacy. Not that conservative practices are actually free market, though. The vote (the switch, and HRC is really conservative when it comes to consolidation of financial markets in the name of free-market economics) is a crossover. The cross indicates a political trend, converging the values, econometrically tested for stress, to effectively manage the unknown risk associated with financial derivatives that intend to lend into larceny, without inducing the gamma risk, which can “just happen” unexpectedly, having then the appearance of a random attribution with a natural-law legitimacy.