A = Alpha lies in asymmetry. B = Asymmetry doesn’t have patterns. A + B = If anyone shares alpha using past patterns, it’s probably already priced in and symmetric. The next Apple won’t make computers. The next Amazon won’t sell books online. The next Google won’t be a search engine. You always need to reside in what comes next. Don’t get me wrong, you need to stay in-tune with past cause-effect relationships, to be able to determine how patternless asymmetry would react in the real world. Eg. When Mike Markkula wrote a $250,000 check to Steve Jobs in 1977, he wasn’t pattern-matching with traditional fundamentals (keep in mind that venture capital didn’t exist back then, backing 2 kids in a garage wasn’t a common occurrence). “Personal computers” weren’t even a category. What past pattern did Mike equate Apple to at the time of that first cheque? None related to the actual asymmetry. And, by the time Apple looked like a pattern, the edge was gone. How, then, do you recognize potential in asymmetry? First principles + a combination of unrelated past patterns. Mike equated Steve’s personality with success stories he’s witnessed (unrelated past pattern), and understood that the function of a personal computer would replace physical, mundane tasks that people already do (first principles).