> (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.

▲

matwood an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

Marsymars 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

duzer65657 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

TacticalCoder 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.