The best course when stocks slide is for investors to stand pat, but ‘put’ options are one way to hedge against a drop and lock in some profits
5 min
The past five years have been good to stock-market investors. The S&P 500 index has climbed an annualised 12% during that period, outstripping the 9% annualised gain over the past 40 years. This year alone the index is up 6.9% as of April 26, tacking on to the 24% gain in 2023.
But signs are emerging that the stock market could be due for a breather. As of April 25, the S&P 500 went 133 trading days without a decline of at least 10%, according to PNC Institutional Asset Management. To be sure, that’s still short of the 172-day average since 1928. But the S&P 500 has jumped 24% in the past six months (about 180 days), which buttresses arguments for a correction.
What’s more, the multiyear ascent has arguably sent stocks to overvalued levels. The S&P 500’s forward price-to-earnings ratio—a gauge of market valuation based on earnings estimates for the next 12 months—registered 20 as of April 26, exceeding the five-year average of 19.1 and the 10-year average of 17.8, according to FactSet.
“A correction is certainly possible,” says Jack Ablin , chief investment officer at wealth-management firm Cresset Capital, pointing to the high valuations and the prospect that rate cuts will come later than expected thanks to inflation that has been higher than expected.
Given the danger of a stock-market correction, commonly defined as a 10% to 20% drop, how can investors guard the profits they have made in recent years?
Assuming you have a well-diversified portfolio and aren’t counting on the money from your stocks to finance an imminent expense, financial advisers say the best strategy is to hang tight.
Corrections generally don’t stick around long. Since 1985, declines between 10% and 20% for the S&P 500 have lasted only 97 days on average—three-plus months—according to a CFRA analysis of S&P data.
It then has taken the market an additional 101 days on average to recover the ground lost during the correction. So in about six months, investors tend to be back where they were before the correction.
“If there’s a shallow correction of 5% to 10%, we recommend riding it out,” says Karim Ahamed , an investment adviser at wealth-management firm Cerity Partners. “Eventually the market recovers. The idea of selling out and climbing back in is difficult to achieve. You’re more likely to stay on the sidelines with your losses crystallising.”
The S&P 500 did fall more than 5% in recent weeks, from March 28 to April 19.
Some people, though, simply find it impossible to do nothing if they fear a correction is looming. At the least, they want to protect the gains they have earned so far. What’s the most prudent way for them to reduce their market exposure?
Keep in mind that most actions you can take to guard your stock profits carry a cost. The easiest method, selling stocks, subjects you to capital-gains taxes unless you are selling from a tax-advantaged retirement account. That tax rate varies according to your income, but will likely be 15%.
One way to limit the burden is through tax-loss harvesting, says Amanda Agati , chief investment officer of PNC’s asset-management group. That is when you sell stocks at a loss, lowering your net capital gain. If you have any dogs in your portfolio—stocks with poor fundamentals—you can unload those.
If you do sell stocks, you could put the proceeds into a money-market fund for now, financial pros say. Many such funds yield 5% or more, far higher than rates over the past 15 years. Or if you want to increase the safety of your overall portfolio, you could put the money into safe government bonds. Three-year Treasury notes yield around 4.75%.
If you are going to unload stocks, but don’t want to sell right away, you can put in a stop-limit sell order through your brokerage. That order can automatically sell your shares if they slide to a level you designate (they can go below it, too), protecting you from big drops.
Say you bought 100 shares of Tesla at $140, and they are now trading at $165. If you don’t want your profit to disappear in a downturn, you could enter a stop-limit sell order with your brokerage at $150 for some or all of your shares. Those shares can be sold if the price reaches $150, securing some of the gains.
You also might shift your holdings more toward defensive stocks, such as utilities and consumer-staple companies, which generally outperform during market downturns, says Michael Sheldon , executive director of wealth-management firm RDM Financial Group.
PNC’s Agati suggests an emphasis on quality stocks, those with high recurring revenues, strong and dependable profit margins, high cash flow and low debt. These stocks—such as AutoZone and Visa , she says—have lagged behind the leaders of the market’s surge over the past year.
Advisers also suggest looking at “put” options to protect your stock gains. Puts give you the right but not the obligation to sell a security at a preset price by a preset deadline.
Note that we’re talking about a risk-reduction approach here, not the kind of risk-taking—to try to amplify returns— that has been rampant in the options market. The simplest strategy could be to purchase a put option on a market-index exchange-traded fund, such as one based on the S&P 500. You could buy puts on individual stocks rather than an index ETF, but that may get expensive and complicated as each option carries a purchase premium.
Here’s how the ETF strategy would work: First, buy an option that would let you sell the ETF at a price below the current one, protecting you from declines beneath that level. You wouldn’t have to sell the ETF, and you wouldn’t even have to own it. As the S&P 500 falls, the put option gains in value, and you can sell it.
Say on April 16 you wanted to protect 100 shares of SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) from a decline of more than 10%. With the ETF trading at $505 a share, you could buy an option that covers 100 shares for $1,050, or $10.50 a share. You’re paying a premium equal to 2% of your position.
The option’s expiration date is December, and its strike price is $455 a share, or 10% below the current value. The strike price is the price at which you could exercise the option. But generally you sell the option rather than exercising it, so you don’t have to dump any shares, especially if you don’t own them.
If the market doesn’t go down 10% by December, you let the option expire worthless, and you’re out the $1,050 you paid for it. If the market drops more than 10%, you can sell your option at a profit whenever you want until December.
While it might be more lucrative to sell it early, Ablin recommends holding until expiration if you’re using the option to protect your portfolio. “Think of it like homeowner insurance,” he says. “You pay a premium, like a deductible for insurance, and your coverage runs for a term.”
Keeping the option until expiration extends your coverage for the longest possible period.
By using options, you don’t have to sell any of your stocks, which are typically the best asset to generate strong long-term returns. “If you have the wherewithal to hold the S&P 500 for 10 years, your odds of making money are over 90%,” Ablin says.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
The Australian leather house has opened an immersive four-day pop-up in Manhattan, unveiling its Bloom Collection and redefining what a product launch can look like.
Following the successful launch of its Palais Collection, MAISON de SABRÉ has unveiled a new modular handbag system offering more than 720 styling combinations.
AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.
4 min
A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.
For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.
There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.
When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.
That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.
Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.
By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.
In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.
Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.
Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”
Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”
Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.
AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.
