{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,30]],"date-time":"2026-09-30T05:57:27Z","timestamp":1790747847583,"version":"4.1.0"},"posted":{"date-parts":[[2026]]},"group-title":"SSRN","reference-count":0,"publisher":"Elsevier BV","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,1]],"date-time":"2026-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1767225600000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"abstract":"<jats:p>&lt;div&gt;\n Protection against equity crashes is usually judged one instrument at a time. Its cost shows up every year, while its value shows up only in the few crises it is meant for. This paper takes the position of an investor who wants to stay fully invested in US equities, with a narrow objective: to cut the left tail of the return distribution, and above all the maximum drawdown, without giving up compound return. It is in three parts. The first compares sleeves of S&amp;amp;P 500 puts of different maturities, from one month to two years. Maturity decides whether the puts protect at all: at the same annual cost, two-year puts bought at the October 2007 peak cut the drawdown of the Global Financial Crisis from -55% to -18%, while one-month puts left the portfolio worse off than no hedge, and in the COVID crash the ranking reversed, but only for a sleeve that happened to hold the right expiry. A ladder of puts struck 25% below the index, with lives spread from three months to two years, is the design that does not require knowing which crisis is coming. The second part examines trend following, represented by the SG Trend Index net of fees, which gained in nine of the index's ten worst months but spent six years below a previous high. The third holds the two sleeves together, in a portfolio of 100% S&amp;amp;P 500, a 50% overlay on the trend index and the put ladder. Over 2000-2024 it compounded at 8.9% a year against 7.8% for the index, and its worst drawdown of the twenty-five years was -33%, in the dot-com bust, against -55% for the index, in the Global Financial Crisis. The two hedges worked in different crises: the ladder alone cut the Global Financial Crisis drawdown to -37%, while in the slow dot-com decline and in 2022 trend following carried the load. The price was a decade of underperformance after 2009, and the evidence rests on a handful of crises.\n&lt;\/div&gt;<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.2139\/ssrn.7541200","type":"posted-content","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,30]],"date-time":"2026-09-30T05:08:27Z","timestamp":1790744907000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Different Maturities, Different Protection:&amp;nbsp;Combining a Put Ladder with Trend Following to Hedge Equity Tail Risk"],"prefix":"10.2139","author":[{"given":"Alessandro","family":"Bacchetti","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"78","container-title":[],"original-title":[],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,30]],"date-time":"2026-09-30T05:08:27Z","timestamp":1790744907000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ssrn.com\/abstract=7541200"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026]]},"references-count":0,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2139\/ssrn.7541200","relation":{},"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026]]},"subtype":"preprint"}}