Tail-risk hedging is an important topic that has attracted considerable attention in the academic community. However, a fully satisfactory solution has yet to emerge. The main challenge is that hedging comes at a cost, creating a persistent drag on portfolio performance.
Reference [1] addresses the same issue of tail-risk hedging but examines whether using deep out-of-the-money (DOOM) puts can provide a more efficient approach. The authors consider a one-year long SPX exposure combined with European SPX puts, with option spending capped at 5% of initial wealth. Purchasing puts reduces the initial SPX allocation rather than introducing additional leverage.
They apply three pricing models: Black-Scholes-Merton, Merton jump-diffusion, and Heston stochastic volatility models, to calculate risk-neutral exercise probabilities, which are then used to select put-option strikes.
The authors pointed out,
The research question addressed by this thesis was: to what extent can deep out-of-the-money put options enhance downside protection for equity portfolios while preserving cost efficiency under different market regimes? The results show that DOOM puts can reduce downside losses, but only when the selected strike region matches the market regime. This alignment depends on the volatility level and downside skew priced in the option surface. These two factors determine the cost of protection across strikes. The hedge is cost-efficient when the selected strike is close enough to the loss region implied by the market regime, ensuring a sufficiently high probability of finishing in the money relative to the premium paid… The historical SPX backtest reveals that the best protection does not necessarily come from the deepest puts. Deep low-strike puts create a far-tail floor, but they protect only if losses reach that region. In some regimes, a higher-strike put bought in smaller quantity is more robust because it is closer to the relevant loss region and pays in a wider range of realized losses.
In short, the paper finds that DOOM puts can reduce downside losses, but their effectiveness is highly regime-, strike-, surface-, and model-dependent. The deepest puts are not automatically the most cost-efficient. Successful protection requires the strike region to line up with the losses actually being targeted and with the option-surface regime prevailing when protection is purchased.
The results are relatively intuitive to practitioners, and no precise optimization algorithm is presented. Overall, the paper highlights that considerable research is still needed in the area of tail-risk hedging.
An innovative proposal of this paper is the use of risk-neutral tail probabilities to select strikes instead of using moneyness. In the BSM framework, this would correspond to using delta for strike selection, an approach that has been employed by practitioners.
Let us know what you think in the comments below or in the discussion forum.
References
[1] Roba, A. (2026). To what extent can deep out-of-the-money put options enhance downside protection for equity portfolios while preserving cost efficiency under different market regimes? Master’s dissertation, Louvain School of Management, UCLouvain.
Article Source Here: Tail-Risk Hedging with Deep Out-of-the-Money Puts
source https://harbourfronts.com/tail-risk-hedging-deep-money-puts/