Why buy SPY when there is S&P500?
The S&P500 is an index, not an investment by itself.  The index lists a large number of stocks, and the value of the index is the price of all the stocks added together. If you want to make an investment that tracks the S&P500, you could buy some shares of each stock in the index, in the same proportions as the index.  This, however, is impractical for just about everyone. Index mutual funds provide an easy way to make this investment.  SPY is an ETF (exchange-traded mutual fund) that does the same thing. An index CFD (contract for difference) is not the same as an index mutual fund.  There are a number of differences between investing in a security fund and investing in a CFD, and CFDs are not available everywhere.
You can employ a hedging strategy using short selling, put options, or other methods that will partially neutralize your exposure to the overall market.   e.g. You could short sell a market-wide index such as the S&P500, while going long (buying) the company you are interested in. Investopedia has a nice primer on this: Also, see this related question here: I tried direct indexing the S&amp;P500 myself and it was a lot of work. Lots of buys and sells to rebalance, tons of time in spreadsheets running calculations/monitoring etc, dealing with stocks being added or removed from the index, adding money (inflows). Etc. All of the work is the main reason I stopped. I came to realize the 0.05% I pay Vanguard is a great deal. What I do not get is why does the author choose to buy an ITM put. If   the goal was to not lose more than 5.6%, he could have chosen a out of   money put where the strike is ~6% OTM. The reason why he is buying a ITM put instead of a put 5-6% below the ATM price, is because he wants to only lose 5-6% after all fee's.  A put at 5-6% below ATM is not free, so it will not actually provide a 6% cushion, more likely 10%-15% maximum loss after it's cost is accounted for. You cannot rely on the strike alone to determine the level of protection you are buying.  Real world example.  SPY DEC 2017 195 strike put, costs $2150, it's about 6% OTM, but it costs roughly 10% of SPY $207, at best it would protect 85% of your net worth.   Strike - Costs = Protection  Did he choose an ITM put because he does not want to pay any time   premium? Does he not lose in wide bid-ask spreads what he gains by not   paying time premium? Nope, you were just misunderstanding how he calculated his protection. He wanted to protect 5-6% after the cost of the hedge. He 'needed' to select an ITM put because time premiums are so high that an OTM put wouldn't suffice. Looking at the SPY option chain you posted, all of the call options with a strike price of 199.50 or higher have a bid of N/A.  That's because the ask price for all of those options is 0.01, and the bid price has to be less than the ask price, but buyers are not allowed to bid 0.00.  It's not accurate to say that no one wants to buy those calls - anyone who wanted to buy one of those calls would just buy it at the ask price of 0.01. So why are people selling those calls for just 0.01?  The further out of the money you go as you get closer to expiration, the less likely the underlying stock or ETF (SPY in this case) will go over the strike price, and the less you can sell it for.  SPY closed yesterday at about 195, and it would have to go up almost 2.5% today for the 199.50 calls to be in the money, and a 2.5% move in one day is extremely unlikely. My level of analysis is not quite that advanced. Can you share what that would show and why that particular measure is the one to use?  I've run regression on prices between the two. VIX prices have no correlation to the s&amp;p500 prices. Shouldn't true volatility result in the prices (more people putting options on the VIX during the bad times and driving that price up) correlate to the selloff that occurs within the S&amp;P500 during recessions and other events that would cause significant or minor volatility? My r2 showed no significance within a measurement of regression within Excel.  But, *gasp* I could be wrong, but would love to learn more about better ways of measurement :) Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27?  Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13.  There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E.  I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag.  One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap.  (Share price divided by annual earnings per share)  It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point.  There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies.  How is it paying its debt?  How is it accumulating the debt?  How is it's return on assets?  How is the return on assets trending?  This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time.  The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general.  The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally. "Rebalancing a portfolio helps you reduce risk, sell high, and buy low. I'll use international stocks and large cap US stocks.  They both have ups and downs, and they don't always track with each other (international might be up while large cap US stocks are down and vice-versa) If you started with 50% international and 50% large cap stocks and 1 year later you have 75% international and 25% large cap stocks that means that international stocks are doing (relatively) well to large cap stocks.    Comparing only those two categories, large cap stocks are ""on sale"" relative to international stocks.   Now move so you have 50% in each category and you've realized some of the gains from your international investment (sell high) and added to your large cap stocks (buy low). The reason to rebalance is to lower risk.   You are spreading your investments across multiple categories to manage risk.   If you don't rebalance, you could end up with 95% in one category and 5% in another which means 95% of your portfolio is tied to the performance of a single asset category. I try to rebalance every 12 months and usually get it done by every 18 months.  I like being a hands-off long term investor and this has proven often enough to beat the S&P500." Just find a low cost S&P 500 index fund, and spend your time reading The Great Mutual Fund Trap instead of wasting your time and money picking actively managed funds.