[toomuchtodo]

> (supposing that they had their investments in stocks, I wouldn't consider that any retiree would have all their money in stocks but there have been some other comments which show a sizable amount, @kipchak's comment shows 50% stock for retirement. so a 50% shock on top of that could lead to a wipe out of 25% of your retirement fund which is honestly still pretty crazy.)

What do you think the cost would be for protective puts per $1M of equity exposure of a portfolio on a monthly basis? "Bubble Insurance" if you will. Going 100% bonds is simply intolerable for the time window for most retirees, but an equity wipeout of this magnitude is equally intolerable.

[otherjason]

They are probably not going to be implemented using long put positions, but a product with a similar return profile to what you're looking for is a buffered ETF. Basically, over a defined period, you agree to a maximum possible downside in exchange for a capped upside. They are available in ETF form from a number of providers.

For example, you could have an S&P 500 fund that, over the next year, will have a maximum of 0% capital losses (it can't go down), you will only get the first, say, 5% of gains that the equity index makes. So if stocks go up 20% the next year, your return is capped at 5%, but if they crash 50%, you don't absorb any capital losses. In practice, the return cap is going to be just a bit above the corresponding Treasury bill for the same duration.

These can be constructed in various different ways and institutionally I'm sure there are more bespoke ways that are more efficient from a fees/returns and tax perspective, but one way to do this on your own without going the ETF route is:

- Pick an amount you'd like to invest. - Buy a Treasury bill for some duration. Treasury bills are discounted at the time of purchase and return the target amount when the bill matures. For instance, if you buy a $100k 1-year Treasury bill, it might cost $96.5k today. - Now you have $3.5k in your pocket and a guarantee that you'll get $100k in a year when the bill matures. Use that $3.5k now to purchase call options or vertical spreads on the S&P 500 index to capture the upside that you can. Your return is limited by the structure of that options trade and what its maximum payoff is.

If you're willing to accept more than 0% downside, then you can achieve a higher potential upside cap as well.

[toomuchtodo]

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you for taking the time to reply!

[Imustaskforhelp]

> What do you think the cost would be for protective puts per $1M of equity exposure of a portfolio on a monthly basis? "Bubble Insurance" if you will. Going 100% bonds is simply intolerable for the time window for most retirees, but an equity wipeout of this magnitude is equally intolerable.

Investment companies have to remain profitable or at-worst neutral as such they would generally charge a decent bit of money for this type of setup. (If they end up having too big of losses then perhaps it could be similar to the the 2007 Banking/Investment companies crisis.)

Generally speaking I am not a financial advisor but you can take a look at international index funds/ETF's in general which have less exposure to AI in general.

and you can follow the age rule created by Mr Bogle where you have (age)% in bonds and (100-age)% in stocks, so at 70 you have 70% bonds, 30% stocks.

So again taking the example of dot com bubble, International Index funds fell from my understanding 30-40% and suppose that you had 30% stocks and 70% bonds.

So that would only have a 30% times 30 % which is 9% which perhaps might be more managable as compared to the previous 25%. There might be some other strategies as well which can help in diversification

Hope this helps!

[mhh__]

The cost of insurance is carry e.g. when you buy an option you are paying for the convexity with time decay. It is quite expensive.

It is worth saying however that part of tail hedging is that the payoff is worth a lot more when everything else has tanked, so e.g. even if you (say) get 10% on your puts when the wider portfolio is still down 40% (made up numbers), you can deploy that capital at probably quite a high expected return.

[matwood]

Even someone close to retirement doesn't need to go 100% bonds. It's not like someone needs all their retirement money on day 1. The part that remains in equities will continue generating dividends that will get reinvested, and recover over time.

[ligne]

100% of anything is a bad idea if you're going to have to draw on them any time soon. Bonds are less volatile than equity, but they're still subject to drops in value.

[matwood]

Sure, but a mistake I often see is people thinking that people's entire retirement savings is needed on the first day of retirement. People can and should still be invested in equities even in retirement, it's just the percentage is less depending on age and burn rate.

[mhh__]

Indeed, we have just been through arguably the largest (nominal) drawdown in the history of fixed income.

[barchar]

It would cost an extreme amount. The only reason to do something like that would be to defer capital gains into retirement while protecting your position.

You can use a collar for this at somewhat reasonable cost. Not sure how rolling that would compare to just using it to defer until you can cheaply sell and buy some fixed income ladder. Probably badly.

Also, there’s no capital gains to defer if you use a retirement account, which will be a better place for fixed income anyway.

[Marsymars]

> What do you think the cost would be for protective puts per $1M of equity exposure of a portfolio on a monthly basis? "Bubble Insurance" if you will.

I expect that would not be a cost-effective way of attaining the risk profile you'd be looking for.

I expect there won't be a more cost-effective way of managing your portfolio risk than by simply adjusting your split of broadly-diversified equities vs bonds.

[intrasight]

My homeowners insurance isn't "cost-effective" either but I still do it. I think the reason that investors don't is because they are greedy or irrational or both.

That was the message that I got from a financial podcast I listened to a couple weeks ago anyway.

[Marsymars]

I'd content that homeowners' insurance is quite cost-effective, because there isn't a cheaper alternative to hedge your risk.

I'm saying that for the cost of buying puts to hedge against equity downside in a retirement portfolio, for any given level of risk, you'd probably be better off just selling some of the equities and buying bonds instead.

e.g. try and find any equity-focused ETF with downside protection that generally outperforms a bog-standard stock/bond split total-market ETF for whatever measure of volatility/downside protection that you want.

[kipchak]

I think the risk for increasing your bond exposure as compensation would be if instead of a low growth/low inflation scenario (Bonds do well) there's a low growth+high inflation scenario (1940s, 1970s, 2022) and the negative correlation between stocks and bonds doesn't hold.

[Marsymars]

Yeah, but in the abstract that's just saying "if you time the market, you can beat it", and we know that generally, the only way people are able to time the market is with random luck.

And more specifically, it's not low growth/high inflation that kills bond portfolio returns, it's interest rates increasing that devalue bonds, i.e. the transition from low inflation to high inflation. So yeah, you can construct a portfolio that hedges against that... but I'd be surprised if you can do it without decreasing your risk-adjusted expected returns below a plain stock/bond index fund - whatever hedging method you use is either going to increase your interest-rate risk (bonds), or your inflation-rate risk (cash), or is going to limit your upside (buffer etfs), or is just going sap your upfront returns (protective puts).

[kipchak]

In that sense, isn't the 60/40 or Boglehead perspective also timing the market, in the sense that you are betting the regime of the past will continue into the near future?

To me the diversification hedge options (say GUNR) seem like they are helping you get closer to regime neutral. Or in other words you are giving up returns to cover more macro scenarios and betting less on what the future looks like.

[intrasight]

>the only way people are able to time the market is with random luck.

No. With insider information.

[duzer65657]

investors are irrational but actually tend to go the other way - too risk adverse. I'm not sure what a "greedy" investor is, TBH.

[intrasight]

Yeah "greedy" is not really the right word. What I meant was not properly managing.

[TacticalCoder]

Take SPY at a strike of $738, per lot of 100 that's $73 800. Take 14 lots, give or take, to make a cool million.

SPY260821P00738000 (OCC symbol: PUT on SPY expiring the 21th of August 2026 at a strike of $738) is $12.20 as I type this, so $1220 per lot. So $16 800 to protect for a month. So $200 K per year.

A solid 20% yearly, unless my math is way off.

Now of course you can buy, instead of a PUT, a PUT debit spread, or you can buy further from the strike, or you can finance or partially finance your PUT or PUT debit spread with a CALL you'd sell (turning it into a covered strangle) etc. That's not the point of this exercise though. And anyway I doubt many retirees have the know-how to do that.

In any case it's well known that the costs to hedge are extremely high.

In 1929 those who had 10% gold for example "only" lost 25% overall: gold has value since thousands of years. My dumb thinking is that if gold has value since thousands of years, there's an extremely high probability that it'll keep value for the few decades I've got left at most.

[FabHK]

A more sensible strategy is probably to protect only against large down moves, so get OTM puts, and then longer maturities (like 1/2 year or so), then rotate them every quarter.

ATM options cost approximately 0.4 S sigma T^0.5 (do a Taylor expansion of the "N"s in the Black Scholes formula), so indeed, for current index vols of about 16% we are talking 0.4 * 16% * (1/12)^0.5 = 1.85% for a 1 month option, and 12 of them indeed cost 22% of your portfolio. Not a good idea.

However, if you hold the options only half the way to expiry, you lose only 1/4 of the time value. And if you buy OTM, you have convexity coming your way on the way down.

Lastly, index vols were very low (until yesterday, ha), as so many firms entered the dispersion trade: they wanted to go long dispersion (some firms do well with AI, some lose out), so short correlation, therefore long single stock vol and short index vol. Which means you could buy index vol (ie protection) quite cheap.