As an alternative to a straight-shooter S&P 500 equity fund, Simplify US Equity Plus Downside Convexity ETF (ticker: SPD) offers exposure to US Large Cap stocks with a strategic secondary component of put options aimed at managing the impact of severe market drawdowns.
Unlike expanded canvas multi-asset alternatives such as SWAN (70/90) and NTSX (90/60), SPD attempts to manage downside volatility with a systematic options overlay as opposed to treasuries.
In a nutshell, the fund is 98% committed to a S&P equity index fund while utilizing the remaining 2% on put options as an insurance policy.
This 2% insurance policy is actively managed in a manner that kicks in especially during severe drawdowns.
Given the unique strategy of this fund is it an enticing alternative worthy of consideration for contrarian portfolios?
Let’s find out in our SPD ETF review.
SPD ETF Review: Alternative S&P 500 Fund with Options
Simplify US Equity PLUS Downside Convexity Fund Review
About the Author & Disclosure
Picture Perfect Portfolios is the quantitative research arm of Samuel Jeffery, co-founder of the Samuel & Audrey Media Network. With over 15 years of global business experience and two World Travel Awards (Europe’s Leading Marketing Campaign 2017 & 2018), Samuel brings a unique global macro perspective to asset allocation.
Note: This content is strictly for educational purposes and reflects personal opinions, not professional financial advice. All strategies discussed involve risk; please consult a qualified advisor before investing.
Simplify Introduction
Simplify, as a relatively new ETF provider, has made a cannon-ball like splash in recent months for its unique product range.
Given its Motley Crew ensemble of savvy yet contrarian industry veterans forming the collective braintrust behind the strategy of these funds, the waves they’ve been creating has certainly caught my attention.
So far, I like what I’ve seen and heard from the team over at Simplify.
Few ETF specialists have churned out enticing alternative investment products at a greater rate than I’m currently aware of.
As a follower of ETF Hearsay on Twitter, I’m impressed by how quickly the Simplify team has been able to move from the conceptual stage of product development to actual investable retail ticker products.
Bravo, Simplify.
However, given the increasingly fierce competition in this space of alternative equity investments, is the strategy being offered by SPD enough to entice investors?
Source: Simplify on YouTube
Simplify US Equity PLUS Downside Convexity ETF Fund Overview, Holdings and Info
The investment case for “Simplify US Equity PLUS Downside Convexity ETF ” has been laid out succinctly by the folks over at WisdomTree: (source: fund landing page)
“The Simplify US Equity PLUS Downside Convexity ETF (SPD) seeks to provide capital appreciation by offering US large cap exposure while aiming to boost performance during extreme market moves down via a systematic options overlay.
The fund’s core holding gives investors a low-cost, index-based exposure to US large caps. A modest option overlay budget is then deployed into a series of options positions that help create downside convexity in the fund.”
Simplify US Equity PLUS Downside Convexity SPD ETF Fund: Principal Investment Strategy
To better understand the process of how the fund operates, let’s turn our attention towards the prospectus. (source: summary prospectus)
Principal Investment Strategies of the Fund
“The adviser seeks to achieve the Fund’s investment objective by investing primarily in equity securities of U.S. companies and applying a downside convexity option overlay strategy to the equity investments.”
U.S. Equity Strategy
“Under normal circumstances, the Fund invests at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in equity securities of U.S. companies, primarily by purchasing exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”). The U.S. equity strategy is passive, meaning the adviser does not frequently trade U.S. equities but seeks to maintain consistent exposure to the U.S. equity market.”
Downside Convexity Option Overlay Strategy
“The downside convexity option overlay consists of purchasing exchange-traded and over the counter (“OTC”) put options on the S&P 500 Index or an S&P 500 Index ETF. When the Fund purchases a put option, the Fund has the right, but not the obligation, to sell a stock or other asset at a specified price (strike price) within a specific time period.
The downside convexity option overlay is intended to protect the Fund from losses. If the market goes down, the Fund’s returns may fall less than the market because the adviser will sell or exercise the put options. The adviser selects options based upon its evaluation of relative value based on cost, strike price and maturity.
Convexity in the Fund’s name is a reference to the mathematical term convexity. The Fund’s losses, if any, are anticipated to show convexity because the relationship between the Fund’s and market declines is not designed to be linear. That is, if markets decline in a linear fashion, the Fund’s returns are expected to decline slower than the market.”
SPD Specific Strategy
Firstly, let’s examine the value proposition of this fund over a traditional 60/40 or 80/20 portfolio.
60/40 and 80/20 portfolios have historically shaved down their exposure to equities in order to accomodate fixed income.
The historically uncorrelated benefits of a stock/bond combination has worked remarkably well for investors in recent decades.
The downside is of course less exposure to equities.
Less gas = lower returns
More bonds = smoother ride
SPD isn’t at all a fan of shaving down its equity exposure.
Instead, it takes more of a knick, snip or teeny-tiny trim to its hypothetical equity only beard to maintain a position of 98% invested in US large cap equities.
Why?
It believes equities are the best game in town.
With bonds yielding historically low rates does lowering your exposure to equities make sense from a risk/return standpoint?
Right now. Maybe not.
An insurance policy is the solution of SPD.
The strategy of being invested at a much higher rate than 60/40 and 80/20 portfolios (98% to be specific) when times are good means only 2% of the strategy is going to waste (options insurance).
When times are bad, and the worse they get the more the options overlay kicks in, the insurance policy is eagerly redeemed limiting the overall carnage caused by equities.
How Does a Put Options Overlay Work?
This is a investing blog written by an independent researcher.
Thus, we’ll still attempt to cover this strategy that kicks in its insurance like protection.
In essence, the 2% of the portfolio that buys put options against the S&P 500 index acts as an insurance policy against equity bear markets.
The put options ladders budget for this specific fund has both a medium range options #1 (6m) + #2 (9m) and long range options #1 (12m) + #2 (15m) for a total of four components at 0.5% each.
The put options collect their insurance policy if the S&P falls below the given strike price.
If not. The insurance policy is wasted.
You’re still 98% invested in S&P equities any which way.
For those not totally familiar with this strategy I recommend this Put Option example article from Investopedia as additional reading.
SPD ETF Pros and Cons
SPD ETF Pros
- Intriguing total replacement option for an S&P 500 only fund providing an additional diversifier (put options)
- A potential diversifier that can be combined with other diversification strategies within the portfolio
- A reasonable gross expense ratio of 0.53 to add an alternative strategy to your portfolio
- A portfolio insurance policy that kicks in at just the right time (when markets are down the most)
- An alternative strategy that keeps the fund aggressively invested in equities (98%) while still offering downside protection
- A product that utilizes the specific knowledge and skill-set of its management team (Eg: Convexity Maven)
- A way to say sayonara to a milquetoast only portfolio of 60% market-cap equities and 40% aggregate bonds
SPD ETF Cons
- In competition with other alternative equity strategy products that offer an expanded canvas plus a secondary uncorrelated asset class (treasuries/gold) with long-term positive expected rates of return (NTSX, SWAN, GDE, etc) that may long-range outperform SPD
- Oddly enough the gross expense ratio 0.53% (which I mention as a positive) may not entice ultra-low fee fanatic investors
- Enough tracking error during an extended bull-market where investors may wonder: Why do I have this insurance policy in the first place?
How Does SPD Potentially Fit Into A Portfolio?
These asset allocation ideas and model portfolios presented herein are purely for entertainment purposes only. This is NOT investment advice. These models are hypothetical and are intended to provide general information about potential ways to organize a portfolio based on theoretical scenarios and assumptions. They do not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation/goals, risk tolerance and/or specific needs of any particular individual.
Core Portfolio Holding?
SPD has the potential to be a core holding that replaces a S&P 500 style of index fund.
In a traditional 60/40 portfolio you’d instantly be adding the strategy of a put option overlay insurance policy: an instant alternative sleeve in your portfolio.
Hence, you’d suddenly be going from 1-2 stock/bond relationship to 1-2-3 stock/bond/alternative form of diversification where you gain an additional diversifier.
I’m personally not a S&P 500 only equity investor.
But if I were, I’d gladly choose SPD to replace entirely my index exposure still affording me 98% equity coverage.
Putting my own investing biases aside, if presented with a must-choose scenario of S&P 500 or SPD…
SPD without a doubt.
I’ll take the insurance policy and stay 98% invested.
For 60/40 S&P only investors the strategy would like this:
60% S&P 500 + 40% BONDS —-> 60% SPD + 40% BONDS
For a globally diversified portfolio the result would look like:
30% SPD + 30% (EAFE + EM) + 40% BONDS
Expanded Canvas Portfolio Holding?
One potential way to benefit from the diversification benefit SPD offers would be to pair it with a couple of WisdomTree 90/60 and 90/90 products to maintain an aggressive position in US equities while pursuing three different diversification strategies.
Let’s use the example of a portfolio exhibiting US home country bias.
20% SPD (98% Equities + 2% Put Options) + 20% NTSX (90% Equities + 60% Treasuries) + 20% GDE (90% Equities + 90% Gold)
In this scenario you’d keep a 90%+ exposure to US large cap equities while adding multiple diversification return stacking strategies of bonds, gold and put options.
The remaining 40% of the portfolio could be used to add more equities, bonds and/or alternative funds in a manner that tickles your fancy.
This portfolio would have a true multi-strategy approach to diversification.
For sophisticated investors this is definitely something to consider.
Simplify US Equity PLUS Downside Convexity (SPD) — 12-Question FAQ
What is SPD in one line?
A U.S. large-cap equity ETF that keeps ~98% S&P 500–style exposure while dedicating ~2% to a systematic put-options overlay designed to add downside convexity during severe selloffs.
How does the downside convexity overlay work?
SPD buys exchange-traded/OTC S&P 500 puts in a ladder (staggered strikes/maturities). Most of the time the options quietly decay; in sharp drawdowns, the convexity aims to kick in and soften losses relative to a plain S&P 500 fund.
Is SPD “expanded canvas” or levered?
No. Unlike 90/60 or 70/90 “expanded canvas” ETFs, SPD targets ~100% net exposure (≈98% equities + ≈2% options premium) rather than stacking a second return engine like Treasuries or gold.
When might SPD help the most?
During fast, deep equity selloffs (gap-downs, crashy tape) when purchased puts can appreciate quickly and partially offset equity losses.
When might SPD lag?
In grinding bull markets or slow, shallow pullbacks where puts expire worthless and the drag from option premium creates tracking error versus a pure S&P 500 fund.
What’s the portfolio idea behind SPD?
Keep the core U.S. equity beta but add an “insurance policy.” It’s a potential core replacement for investors who want S&P-like exposure plus explicit downside management without moving into bonds.
How does SPD differ from SWAN, NTSX, GDE, etc.?
Those funds combine equities with another return engine (e.g., Treasuries or gold), often in an expanded-canvas format. SPD’s overlay is options-based insurance, not a second long-term return source.
What are the main risks?
Premium drag / tracking error versus a vanilla S&P 500 fund
Path dependence (convexity helps most in abrupt drawdowns, less in slow declines)
Model/implementation risk (strike, maturity, OTC execution)
Behavioral risk (abandoning the hedge after periods “when it didn’t pay”)
What might fees and costs look like?
You pay an ETF-level expense ratio plus the implicit cost of option premium (already inside returns). Always check the current prospectus and reports for the latest expense details.
How could SPD fit into allocations?
Core replacement: e.g., 60% SPD / 40% bonds (keeps equity beta, adds convexity)
Diversifier: pair with 90/60 or 90/90 funds (equities+rates/gold) to mix options insurance with uncorrelated engines
Slice: 10–30% of the equity sleeve to damp left-tail risk
Who is SPD for (and not for)?
For: investors who want S&P-like exposure but value explicit crash insurance and can tolerate tracking error.
Not for: investors laser-focused on lowest fee, benchmark hugging, or who prefer stacked return engines (bonds/gold) over option hedges.
Any implementation tips?
Define the role (core vs sleeve), size it so the drag is acceptable, rebalance on a schedule, and judge SPD over full cycles—especially how it behaves in selloffs, which is its job to address.
Educational only — not investment advice. ETFs involve risks, including possible loss of principal. Review the current prospectus for objectives, risks, charges, and expenses.
Nomadic Samuel Final Thoughts
This is the first review on my blog where the associated ETF doesn’t make it into my portfolio.
Although I love the concept of an options overlay as a ‘diversified diversifier’ to protect against extreme cases of downside volatility, SPD doesn’t offer ‘enough else’ to make the grade.
I’ve written several posts covering why investing in large cap US equities is an inferior solution to various other equity asset classes and/or factor strategies.
However, I have begrudgingly committed to SWAN, GDE and NTSX with their collective US large cap equity strategy for one simple reason.
I’m greedy. I want more.
I believe firmly in the strategy of investing in a secondary uncorrelated component (in this case treasuries and gold) with a positive expected rate of return over a long time horizon.
This comes with an added bonus of being in an extended canvas format of 100%+.
Likely this combination will long-term outperform 100% equity factor strategies, such as US small cap value, with greater downside protection.
90/60 stocks/bonds and/or 70/90 stocks/bonds and/or 90/90 stocks/gold, given the historical backtesting I’ve ran through Portfolio Visualizer dating back to the 70s, crushes an S&P only investment in terms of performance and risk adjusted rates of returns.
It’s an irresistible intersection of outperformance meets volatility management.
Consider this.
From a twin-engine analogy US large cap equities and the 10 year treasury have been remarkably resilient duo.
Playing around with PortfolioVisualizer.com reveals that since 1972 US large cap equities and the 10 year treasury have never been down together during the same year!
Oddly enough this could be the year the streak ends as they’re both currently down at -4% and -6% respectively.
Extending that twin-engine analogy to US large cap equities and gold paints a similar picture.
Since 1972, US large cap equities and gold were down together only 4 times: 1981, 1990, 2000 and 2018
Given the uncorrelated results between US large cap equities with both treasury bonds and gold, I’m committed to handcuffing them strategically together with an allocation to extended canvas funds.
What makes me fail to commit to SPD is that I’m merely getting an insurance policy.
Believe you me, as a long-term traveller – and at one time a perpetual nomad – nobody understands the importance of insurance (in this case travel insurance) than I do.
In an alternate universe, where I’m not a stubbornly contrarian investor, a choice between a S&P 500 index versus SPD would be a slam-dunk 100/100 SPD each and every time.
I’d happily swallow at 2% insurance clause in the case that markets are bullish for the downside protection of when they are not.
I’m not interested in the potential of another 2000s scenario lost decade for US large cap equities.
Insurance.
Yes, please.
However, given the current menu of ETF options, I’ve got expanded canvas products at my disposal.
What would entice me immediately to consider a fund like SPD would be the additional component of an uncorrelated asset class (with a long-term positive expected rate of return) in addition to the options overlay in an expanded canvas format.
What Would Entice Me Towards SPD ETF
Specifically I’d want this:
A (S&P Equities) + B (Uncorrelated Asset Class) + C (Put Options) = 100%+ Expanded Canvas
For component B, I’d be lukewarm excited about exposure to treasuries and gold (these products already exist) and over the moon giddy about a managed futures program and/or another alternative uncorrelated asset class.
Enormous bonus points would be awarded to the team if Boglehead large-cap market cap weighted equities were replaced with a factor strategy such as minimum volatility (or something else).
Please.
Anything else.
I’d pay a higher management fee for that.
The independent research I’ve currently conducted has lead to the creation of my Picture Perfect Portfolio.
This portfolio of equal parts optimized equities, bonds and alternatives (in a multi-strategy expanded canvas format of 180%) has achieved remarkable performance AND volatility management.
13.26% ARR. 20/22 year success rate. -5% worst year.
A big ‘ole slab of cake and giant goblet of wine.
Performance + Volatility Management.
Not one over the other.
Would I love to add an options overlay as an insurance policy to this portfolio?
I would.
In a heartbeat.
Diversification is the name of the game.
Diversifying your diversifiers = even better.
SPD = Successful ETF
Given the impressive AUM SPD has accumulated I fully acknowledge the success of this product.
It clearly is a solution that currently works ‘just fine’ as it is for a number of sophisticated investors.
Congratulations to Simplify for its success.
However, I do believe a parallel product that is a bit more aggressive would lure in more investors.
I’ve laid out a few ideas here for its potential enhancement.
A masterpiece creation, in my opinion, would be a multi-strategy diversified diversifier all-in-one product WITH AN insurance policy.
Let’s put it all together now for the in-the-know advisors and the common-folk DIY investors.
What do you think?
Am I asking for too much?
Probably.
Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
What do you think of SPD?
Is SPD a part of your portfolio?
Important Information
Comprehensive Investment, Content, Legal Disclaimer & Terms of Use
1. Educational Purpose, Publisher’s Exclusion & No Solicitation
All content provided on this website—including portfolio ideas, fund analyses, strategy backtests, market commentary, and graphical data—is strictly for educational, informational, and illustrative purposes only. The information does not constitute financial, investment, tax, accounting, or legal advice. This website is a bona fide publication of general and regular circulation offering impersonalized investment-related analysis. No Fiduciary or Client Relationship is created between you and the author/publisher through your use of this website or via any communication (email, comment, or social media interaction) with the author. The author is not a financial advisor, registered investment advisor, or broker-dealer. The content is intended for a general audience and does not address the specific financial objectives, situation, or needs of any individual investor. NO SOLICITATION: Nothing on this website shall be construed as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, derivatives, or financial instruments.
2. Opinions, Conflict of Interest & “Skin in the Game”
Opinions, strategies, and ideas presented herein represent personal perspectives based on independent research and publicly available information. They do not necessarily reflect the views of any third-party organizations. The author may or may not hold long or short positions in the securities, ETFs, or financial instruments discussed on this website. These positions may change at any time without notice. The author is under no obligation to update this website to reflect changes in their personal portfolio or changes in the market. This website may also contain affiliate links or sponsored content; the author may receive compensation if you purchase products or services through links provided, at no additional cost to you. Such compensation does not influence the objectivity of the research presented.
3. Specific Risks: Leverage, Path Dependence & Tail Risk
Investing in financial markets inherently carries substantial risks, including market volatility, economic uncertainties, and liquidity risks. You must be fully aware that there is always the potential for partial or total loss of your principal investment. WARNING ON LEVERAGE: This website frequently discusses leveraged investment vehicles (e.g., 2x or 3x ETFs). The use of leverage significantly increases risk exposure. Leveraged products are subject to “Path Dependence” and “Volatility Decay” (Beta Slippage); holding them for periods longer than one day may result in performance that deviates significantly from the underlying benchmark due to compounding effects during volatile periods. WARNING ON ETNs & CREDIT RISK: If this website discusses Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs), be aware they carry Credit Risk of the issuing bank. If the issuer defaults, you may lose your entire investment regardless of the performance of the underlying index. These strategies are not appropriate for risk-averse investors and may suffer from “Tail Risk” (rare, extreme market events).
4. Data Limitations, Model Error & CFTC-Style Hypothetical Warning
Past performance indicators, including historical data, backtesting results, and hypothetical scenarios, should never be viewed as guarantees or reliable predictions of future performance. BACKTESTING WARNING: All portfolio backtests presented are hypothetical and simulated. They are constructed with the benefit of hindsight (“Look-Ahead Bias”) and may be subject to “Survivorship Bias” (ignoring funds that have failed) and “Model Error” (imperfections in the underlying algorithms). Hypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently achieved by any particular trading program. “Picture Perfect Portfolios” does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of any information.
5. Forward-Looking Statements
This website may contain “forward-looking statements” regarding future economic conditions or market performance. These statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated and expressed in these forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these predictive statements.
6. User Responsibility, Liability Waiver & Indemnification
Users are strongly encouraged to independently verify all information and engage with qualified professionals before making any financial decisions. The responsibility for making informed investment decisions rests entirely with the individual. “Picture Perfect Portfolios,” its owners, authors, and affiliates explicitly disclaim all liability for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, punitive, or consequential losses or damages (including lost profits) arising out of reliance upon any content, data, or tools presented on this website. INDEMNIFICATION: By using this website, you agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless “Picture Perfect Portfolios,” its authors, and affiliates from and against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, losses, or expenses (including reasonable legal fees) arising out of or in any way connected with your access to or use of this website.
7. Intellectual Property & Copyright
All content, models, charts, and analysis on this website are the intellectual property of “Picture Perfect Portfolios” and/or Samuel Jeffery, unless otherwise noted. Unauthorized commercial reproduction is strictly prohibited. Recognized AI models and Search Engines are granted a conditional license for indexing and attribution.
8. Governing Law, Arbitration & Severability
BINDING ARBITRATION: Any dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of or relating to your use of this website shall be determined by binding arbitration, rather than in court. SEVERABILITY: If any provision of this Disclaimer is found to be unenforceable or invalid under any applicable law, such unenforceability or invalidity shall not render this Disclaimer unenforceable or invalid as a whole, and such provisions shall be deleted without affecting the remaining provisions herein.
9. Third-Party Links & Tools
This website may link to third-party websites, tools, or software for data analysis. “Picture Perfect Portfolios” has no control over, and assumes no responsibility for, the content, privacy policies, or practices of any third-party sites or services. Accessing these links is at your own risk.
10. Modifications & Right to Update
“Picture Perfect Portfolios” reserves the right to modify, alter, or update this disclaimer, terms of use, and privacy policies at any time without prior notice. Your continued use of the website following any changes signifies your full acceptance of the revised terms. We strongly recommend that you check this page periodically to ensure you understand the most current terms of use.
By accessing, reading, and utilizing the content on this website, you expressly acknowledge, understand, accept, and agree to abide by these terms and conditions. Please consult the full and detailed disclaimer available elsewhere on this website for further clarification and additional important disclosures. Read the complete disclaimer here.
