Sep

26

[A Barron's article, published in 2016, was concerned with a Tail Risk Protection product].

I'm a neophyte simpleton, but it seems to me that risk and reward have a linear relationship. How do you take less risk and get more reward in anything speculative?

Andy Aiken replies: 

He's proposing that far OTM put prices embed assumptions of solvency and central bank competence that are revealed to be untrue in a crisis. This is probably true to some extent. It's similar to betting on #19 on a roulette table month after month, at a casino where the (unlikely) policy buried deep in the published casino rules is that if the lights go out mid-spin, the player is declared the winner.

The payoff for a straight number bet at roulette is 36:1. Of course the probability of a straight bet winning is 1:37, so the expected value of the bet is 36/37.

Tail risk strategies are a bet that the probability of the lights going out mid-spin are significantly greater than 1:37.

The problem is that if a crisis is really severe, then no payoff may be possible.

Did the lights go out because the casino couldn't pay its electric bill (because it is bankrupt)? Did a 3-mile-diameter meteorite hit the casino? Did the Fed declare put contracts null and void, requiring redemption at the original purchase price? This problem is analogous to David Bernoulli's famous St. Petersburg paradox:

The game could be profitable if there were no tail risks on collecting the winnings themselves. Also, although there may be near-term anomalies/market inefficiencies enabling a "value" investment, the question is whether the strategy is profitable in the long run accounting for spreads, transaction costs, and tail risks on collecting the winnings. 


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

1 Comment so far

  1. Ed on September 26, 2017 6:49 pm

    I think a lot of the "crisis" investors miss this

    "the problem is that if a crisis is really severe, then no payoff may be possible."

Archives

Resources & Links

Search