(Image credit: Getty Images)
In recent years, portfolio construction conversations often centered on where returns might come from next.
For the remainder of 2026, the starting point is shifting back toward a different question of how portfolios may behave if markets don’t move as expected.
That change reflects a broader reassessment of diversification and downside management, particularly after recent market shifts challenged long-standing assumptions.
Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free Newsletters
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more – straight to your e-mail.
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice – straight to your e-mail.
Take the 2022 market as an example. Stocks and bonds declined together, and the diversification benefit that many investors expected from fixed income did not materialize. Bonds worked as a hedge during previous market downturns, including the 2008 global financial crisis.
But more recently, correlations have proven less stable. While stock-bond correlations moved back toward negative territory after 2022, they have shown signs of shifting again. For advisers relying on a traditional 60/40 framework, that variability matters.
At the same time, ETF usage continues to expand as advisers refine portfolio construction tools. U.S.-listed ETFs gathered more than $1.5 trillion in net inflows in 2025, the highest annual total on record, according to State Street.
The report highlights how ETFs are increasingly used for targeted exposures and portfolio precision rather than solely broad index replication.
Within that broader growth, defined outcome and buffered ETFs have continued to gain traction. Assets in U.S.-listed defined outcome ETFs have grown to about $70 billion, with several billion dollars in net inflows in 2025, according to ETF Database’s 2025 category analysis.
Forward-looking data also suggests sustained interest. In Brown Brothers Harriman’s 2025 Global ETF Investor Survey, 29% of respondents indicated plans to allocate to buffered or defined outcome ETFs over the next 12 months.
Taken together, these figures suggest that defined outcome strategies may be moving beyond niche status and becoming more integrated into adviser toolkits.
Why now?
One factor could be renewed attention to how diversification functions in different market regimes. If stock-bond correlations are not consistently negative, relying solely on fixed income to provide downside protection may not deliver the expected results.
That has prompted some advisers to consider alternative approaches to managing equity risk while maintaining participation in the equity market.
Another factor is portfolio positioning. Despite strong equity performance over the past several years, elevated levels of cash and cash-like allocations remain in the system.
For some investors, re-entering markets with defined parameters around downside risk can provide a structured path back into equities.
When clients understand the range of potential outcomes in advance, including both the upside limitations and the downside buffers, conversations during volatile periods often become more grounded in agreed-upon parameters rather than short-term market headlines.
How does it work in practice?
In practice, advisers are incorporating defined outcome ETFs in several ways.
Some are carving out a portion of a core equity allocation, for example, within U.S. large cap exposure, and replacing it with a buffered strategy that maintains exposure to the same asset class while incorporating a predefined level of downside protection.
Others are using buffered ETFs as a redeployment vehicle for cash. Rather than moving directly from money markets into full equity exposure, advisers may choose a structure that provides participation on the upside while defining downside parameters.
A third approach involves carving out a portion of fixed income and reallocating to a buffered equity strategy. The goal in this case is not to eliminate fixed income, but to increase equity participation while incorporating a built-in layer of protection that does not depend on bond-equity correlation dynamics.
As these strategies have grown, misconceptions have emerged. One of the more common views is that the return cap embedded in many defined outcome structures represents an added “fee.”
Structurally, the cap reflects the economic trade-off required to finance the downside-protection component.
Advisers evaluating these strategies must weigh that tradeoff in the context of client objectives and risk tolerance, but it is distinct from an explicit management fee layered on top of market exposure.
Bringing risk management to the fore
None of this suggests that traditional asset allocation frameworks are obsolete. Bonds continue to play an important role in income generation and duration management.
But recent market experience has reinforced a broader point that risk management considerations must be incorporated at the asset allocation stage, before they are urgently needed.
For advisers in 2026 and beyond, that shift is less about forecasting market direction and more about structuring portfolios with defined expectations. In that sense, risk management is not a defensive afterthought. It is becoming a core design principle.
Related Content
TOPICS