In summer of 2020, I published a short post (4 min read) that I believe holds several deeply important investing meta-lessons. It’s called You Don’t See The Whole Picture.
Using the dad voice I use on my sons when I think they are sandbaggin’, I’ll say: you should really read it.
I’ll wait.
Ok, just so we are on the same page, I’ll spell out its lessons:
Prescription: Take portfolio construction seriously. Because it’s not intuitive, grokking it can give you an edge1.
Prescription: Diversify so you are only left the irreducible systematic risks that you do get paid for2.
These three ideas point to a subtle implication which extends beyond investing but is [to me at least] most legible from the lens of portfolio and options theory:
The value of an asset viewed in isolation is actually a floor.
Let’s stay in the business world for now.
A company’s value can be much higher than a DCF-based valuation if it improves the portfolio of its most efficient holder. In that post, the SUN shareholder’s portfolio is the highest and best use of RAIN shares. I’d expect the SUN shareholder to set the marginal price of RAIN.
Meanwhile non-holders of SUN are looking at RAIN in a vacuum and concluding it’s an overpriced coin flip not an investment. It’s gotta be a bubble, right?
They just don’t see what SUN shareholders see. It’s like when a market maker gets their bid hit on a slug of super cheap XYZ vol, only to find out that some hedge fund bought a convert or ASR at a much lower implied XYZ vol. Just like the person selling RAIN shares to SUN holder, the market maker is getting arbed by someone who sees a fuller picture.
So when we value a business, say using DCF (“discounted cash flow” he said as he dismounted a dinosaur), that’s the floor price. Even if there were no other potential investors that could be a strategic buyer for our business, we know it’s worth its DCF4.
So there is optionality struck at the DCF value!
The option represents the gap between the DCF and the price a strategic investor would pay.
The value of a traditional call option depends on several easily observable inputs: the strike, distance from the strike, interest rates, and time to expiry. The input we cannot observe is the volatility of the underlying asset during the the life of the option.
If you have heard of the “greeks” they are just measures of sensitivity of the price of an option with respect to one of these inputs5.
So the big question: what does this option to be acquired by a more efficent portfolio or strategic investor depend on?
Connectivity and divergence
I don’t have any formal or quantitative explanations but the reasons feel intuitive.
Connectivity
If “DCF in isolation” is our lower bound, the option struck from that point starts to accrue value as the number of entities in the world grow. A seesaw is worthless until a second kid shows up. More interconnections means more possible portfolio combinations. And the value of the option is maximized by the portfolio that can find the best combination on the frontier of risk/reward.
Embedded in connectivity is how networked information is. You could have a world with many companies, but if they don’t know about each other. That information bottleneck would impair the value of the option even if there were theoretically many combinations.
Divergence
This goes back to how counter-correlations lower the risk of portfolios. If your business looks like every other, than there is no room for you to marginally improve the portfolio of a suitor. They already would have acquired one of the businesses you resemble. The premium to your DCF value is a function of your divergence or scarcity.
To recap so far:
A business is just an instance of the wider category “generating”. Businesses generate solutions. A car is a solution.
Every activity from playing sport or writing a song or cooking is generating. Some of these activities are useful to others. But the value can also be isolated. If you decide to hike across the country, it generates intrinsic value for you. Before you did it, you considered the value and decided on its own it was a worthwhile endeavor.
But as connectivity increased, the idea that you could blog about a hike (perhaps even funding it) expanded the value of this otherwise narrow but concentrated endeavor. The hiker always owned a call option on the rewards of this endeavor, but the internet gave that option value.
A graphic designer. An orater. A mind that excels at games. All of these concentrated endeavors are generating functions. But the leverage embedded in connectivity maximizes their value. A nerd with a niche interest in cryptography suddenly finds their hobby of significant complementary value to the finance establishment.
In an age of side-hustles, doing something for its own sake can seem wasteful. Or some people might feel “I don’t want to do X unless I’m going to get really good at it”. I feel that way sometimes too. For a certain type of person, it’s an encouraging reminder, that as the world continues forming synapses, those “selfish” hours spent doing something “weird” might have a lot more value than what you think they do today. I suspect the value of these options can only be seen in hindsight8. But take heart.
At worst, they are their own reward and any upside, no matter how remote, is yours too.
See Contrarian Beliefs As A Synthetic Option by Byrne Hobart
If you use options to hedge or invest, check out the moontower.ai option trading analytics platform
A moontower user sent this [paraphrased] message in our Discord the morning of Jan 9th:…
Remember that chart of CAR last week. (Matt Levine wrote about the fundamentals of the squeeze on…
At least once a day, I think about how the staunchest supporters of “broken window…
From @buccocapital on Anthropic CEO’s insistence that AI is going to wipe out 50% of jobs. Bingo.…
In this issue: obvious error rule broken window theory why home prices aren’t going to…
I’ll open with a thought that could probably just be a tweet on the limitation…