A Deep Dive into Buffered ETFs

The Defined Outcome investment landscape is rapidly evolving, offering new opportunities for managing risk and return with greater precision. As market conditions shift, understanding how these strategies function—and where they fit within a diversified portfolio—is essential.

Over the last several years there has been explosive growth in the category of Defined Outcome Funds. Until October 2024, the category of Defined Outcome didn’t even exist. Defined Outcome or buffered funds were lumped into a broad category called “Options Trading.” However, Morningstar decided to carve out a separate Defined Outcome category as there are now over 350 funds with an excess of $58bn AUM in the category as of December 31st, 2024.

growth defined

During the first wave of growth in these products, most funds were variations on these themes:

  • Most were based upon the S&P 500
  • Most had a one-year time horizon
  • Most employed a variation of a “put spread collar” trade
  • Most were passively managed, with the portfolio managers following a “set it and forget it” approach.

The basic value proposition of a defined outcome fund was that investors would have partial, but not complete, downside risk mitigation should the S&P 500 sell off. In exchange for limiting the downside losses, the investor’s gains would be capped. If the S&P 500 was up over the one-year period, the defined outcome fund would participate in gains up to, but not exceeding, a predetermined cap.

An in-depth discussion of the put-spread collar trade can be found here. The investor’s primary decision was the risk-return trade-off: larger buffers were associated with more meager caps and conversely, more generous caps were associated with shallow buffers.

traditional

This basic set-up was also quite easy for the portfolio managers of these funds. Other than managing cash flows, the options in the fund only needed to be traded or “rolled” once a year. In fact, to advertise the buffers and caps of a typical Defined Outcome fund, the managers had to be “hands off” and passively manage the fund. Altering the trades mid-year would change the outcomes.