Buffer Madness
aqr.com · 2025-05-08 · tier T2
Source: Memo · aqr.com dated 2025-05-08. Auto-generated factual summary. Not investment advice. Verify before acting.
Following criticism of a prior analysis of options-based strategies like defined outcome funds and buffered ETFs, the author presents updated data through April 30 showing that 86% of funds in three Morningstar categories (Derivative Income, Defined Outcome, Options Trading - Equity Hedged) delivered lower returns than a simple passive equities plus cash combination over 5+ years. Additionally, 70% of these funds underperformed while also experiencing worse peak-to-trough drawdowns. The author addresses six main criticisms of the original piece and proposes that the industry's appeal despite weak empirical support stems from a placebo effect.
Citations · 4
“86% of them delivered lower returns (i.e., the first column) over the past 5+ years”
p#8 · confidence 95%
“70% not only underperformed, they also had worse peak-to-trough drawdowns”
p#8 · confidence 95%
“three different Morningstar categories: Derivative Income, Defined Outcome, and Options Trading - Equity Hedged”
p#6 · confidence 95%
“an industry that lacks compelling data and economic rationale to support it still has diehard fans”
p#3 · confidence 90%
Follow this investor
Cliff Asness
AQR Perspectives · quant value and factor investing
More from Cliff Asness
Browse all →- Cliff AsnessI Did Not Predict What Is Going on in Privates
Memo
Investor clarifies he did not predict private equity's recent troubles, citing long-term structural concerns rather than near-term market calls.
Original on aqr.com ↗2026-03-25
- Cliff AsnessThere Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
Memo
Research finds buffer funds fail to justify their complexity and cost versus simpler risk-management alternatives.
Original on aqr.com ↗2025-08-11
Summarized by DailySharpe AI