Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the consideration of buffer ETFs as a suitable investment option when the investment horizon shortens, particularly in the context of funding home renovations and managing market risks [2]. Group 1: Investment Strategy - The author and their spouse traditionally maintained a 70% stock and 30% bond allocation but are now looking to de-risk their portfolio due to a shortened investment timeline [2]. - The need to reduce or eliminate stock market exposure and lower bond duration and credit risk is emphasized as a response to potential market downturns [2]. Group 2: Buffer ETFs Introduction - Innovator ETFs launched a series of "100% buffer" ETFs in summer 2023, designed to provide full downside protection while being linked to major indices like the S&P 500 [3]. - Other institutions such as First Trust, Calamos, Prudential, and BlackRock have also introduced similar products, positioning them as alternatives to traditional bank products like CDs [3]. Group 3: Investment Characteristics Comparison - Treasury bills (T-bills) offer fixed terms and yields with no downside risk unless a large-scale default occurs, but they have a capped upside [4]. - 100% buffer ETFs combine index exposure with protective put options, allowing for full downside protection while providing limited upside potential [4]. - The article notes that the clarity of the return structure for buffer ETFs is only present at the time of option establishment, with subsequent returns influenced by various market factors [4]. Group 4: Due Diligence Process - A two-step due diligence process is recommended: selecting the most suitable 100% buffer ETF and comparing it with T-bills of similar maturity [5]. - The selection process involves understanding product terminology and the practices of different issuers, as well as choosing a reference asset and expiration date [5]. Group 5: Product Evaluation - Five buffer ETF options were identified, including DMAX, PMJA, ZJAN, CPSY, and DECM, with varying expense ratios and potential returns [6]. - DMAX is highlighted as the most cost-effective option with a total cost of ownership (TCO) of 0.67% and an annual upside cap of 8.40% [9]. Group 6: Performance Analysis - The analysis of DMAX's performance relative to the S&P 500 indicates that it offers 100% downside protection while providing a potential upside if the index performs well [10]. - The comparison with T-bills shows that DMAX has a higher potential return, but the costs associated with its protective mechanisms must be considered [12]. Group 7: Tax Considerations - The article discusses the tax implications of investing in buffer ETFs versus T-bills, noting that capital gains from buffer ETFs may be taxed at a higher rate compared to the interest from T-bills [18]. - The potential for higher tax burdens on capital gains in high-tax states is also highlighted, affecting the attractiveness of buffer ETFs for certain investors [18]. Group 8: Conclusion - The decision to invest in buffer ETFs like DMAX versus T-bills should consider risk tolerance, potential returns, and tax implications based on individual circumstances [19]. - The article concludes that for some investors, the known costs of buffer ETFs may not justify the uncertain potential returns, especially in the context of their specific financial goals [20].