Advisors often evaluate the cost of hedging correctly but misjudge the benefits because they are comparing a certain cost against an uncertain outcome.
The cost of a hedged equity strategy is explicit, appearing daily in an expense ratio, an option premium or lower upside capture. The benefit, however, is probabilistic and only becomes obvious when markets decline. Because investors naturally overweigh visible costs and underweight avoided losses, evaluating whether a strategy is worth the additional basis points becomes a psychological challenge.
In calm markets, protection looks expensive; in stressed markets, it looks cheap.
No one questions the cost of downside protection after a bear market. The debate only exists during bull markets, which suggests investors often judge protection based on whether it was needed yesterday rather than whether it may be needed tomorrow.
Low Cost ≠ High Value
The financial industry has conditioned advisors to think in terms of relative performance rather than quality outcomes. A hedged equity ETF that captures 80% of a rising market may appear inefficient next to a passive index fund. Yet if that same strategy captures materially less of a severe drawdown, the long-term outcome may be superior despite lagging during extended bull markets.
This fixation stems from a misapplied metric. Goodhart’s law states that when a measure becomes the target, it ceases to be a good measure. While a benchmark measures market participation, the client experiences the actual journey.
The focus on fees is understandable because costs are among the few variables investors can control. However, low cost does not equal high value. Most advisors would not recommend eliminating homeowners’ insurance to save money, nor would they suggest driving without seatbelts because most trips end safely.
While avoiding hedging saves on fees, it may not save money when market conditions deteriorate.