Skip to main content

Bernie Madoff and Stock Options




We'll resume our discussion of stock options from where we were here. The above photographed felon will come into our discussion soon enough.

Options can be part of broader strategies that limit exposure in either direction. You can combine puts and calls to create a “collar” around the market price of the underlying stock, limiting both your own profit and your own risk.

The word “straddle” has connotations similar to “collar,” suggesting that options allow the straddler to be on both sides of the same underlying asset at the same time. Yet “straddle” has a more aggressive sound to it.

As it happens, Bernie Madoff used to tell prospective clients that he was following an options-based straddle strategy.  Of course, he wasn’t following any strategy, but he needed to sell a story, and that was it.  

Such a straddle strategy, by the way, can work when carried out legitimately. It can do roughly what Madoff claimed that he was using it to do – produce a slow-but-steady stream of equity market profits. But (and this is a big “but,”) it can’t do so on anything like the scale on which Madoff claimed he was working. He had $17 billion on his books at his height, and the options markets just don’t do the volume that would support that much hedging.   

A Hedge in Both Directions

But, since we've justified our visual, let us return from Madoff-inspired fantasies to the real world. We spoke in the last chapter of the intuitive risk-return trade-off, and here we’ve just described the value of stock options as a hedge against risk. I suggest that we dig further into this notion of risk, especially as it applies in the market for corporate equities.  

Remember that risk in financial economics is conventionally identified as the standard deviation, or the width of the bell curve representing outcome for a portfolio within a defined period.

But we have thus far assumed that the shape of the curve representing those outcomes is the “normal” bell. If it isn’t, then perhaps the tails are fatter than they should be. That’s a problem, because of course the “tail” of the curve on the left hand side of the graph represents disastrously bad outcomes. If the tail is fatter than normal, disasters are more likely than any calculations based upon that curve will presume.

There are at least two different ways in which the curves can be non-normal, yielding bigger tails. However we draw a hypothetical curve, it will have to cover just as much space, have as much volume within the resulting shape, as does the normal distribution, because in any event 100 percent of the possibilities must be present and accounted for.

The most obvious way to re-jigger the distribution, then, is simply to flatten the curve, and make up the loss of space by raising the tails on each side. This makes the ‘normal; result somewhat less compelling, and the extremes, both the very big dogs and the very small dogs, somewhat more common, while preserving horizontal symmetry – that is, while leaving the result unskewed.
A less obvious way to end up with fat tails is to make the bell pointier. That is, take the normal curve, move its central point upward, and fatten the tails, while ‘paying’ for this by lowering the shoulders. In probability terms, this indicates a situation in which the median is more likely than in the normal curve, extreme results are also more likely, and the moderately off-center results are less likely.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…