Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

By: Scott Maidel, CFA, CAIA, FRM, Senior Portfolio Manager DECEMBER 2010

Karl Sahlin, CPA, Portfolio Manager

Capturing the volatility premium


through call overwriting
Systematic call overwriting strategies are valuable tools in the
investment toolbox. They can provide income, attractive risk1 adjusted
returns and the potential for a cushion during market downturns. In this
paper, we explore call overwriting, the impact of strategy construction
and performance across various market environments.

From Russell’s vantage point we see growing conviction in the marketplace for moderating
long term return expectations. Combine this view with a low interest rate environment and
the result is an increasing number of investors searching for higher levels of portfolio
income and protection against short term volatility. One way investors are achieving these
goals is by implementing call overwriting programs against long portfolios. Our objective is
to review basic strategy characteristics, risk/reward profiles and key overwriting strategy
design factors. Naturally these elements should be viewed against the backdrop of the
overall portfolio objectives, the current volatility regime and expectations for future volatility
in order to optimize the strategy.
It should be noted up front that call option overwriting is most commonly implemented in
equity markets. Primary reasons for this include the high degree of relative volatility,
liquidity, and market participant familiarity. Though this paper focuses on equity markets,
many of the strategies can also be successfully applied to other asset classes.

Basics: call overwriting strategies aim to capture the volatility risk premium
Call overwriting strategies can be viewed as selling a form of insurance whereby the option
seller receives an upfront call premium for writing insurance to a buyer who wishes to gain
long exposure with limited downside risk. The main risk and potential cost at expiration to
the call option seller is the liability born if the security/index moves above the strike price
plus premium points received.

1
Many measures of portfolio risk do not control for non-normal return patterns. In this paper we attempt to portray
portfolio risk via measures that are widely understood and accepted, acknowledging that skew, kurtosis and other
statistical measures are not universally accounted for in some of these measures.

Russell Investments // Capturing the volatility premium through call overwriting


All forms of insurance come at a cost and in the world of options a key element of the cost
is the “volatility risk premium.” The volatility premium is a well understood and documented
investment concept. Simply, the volatility implied by option prices over time has consistently
been greater than subsequent realized volatility of the underlying securities. This
phenomenon creates an implied-to-realized volatility spread. Exhibit 1 shows the volatility
spread for the S&P 500 Index. When an option is sold it is priced based on implied volatility.
The ultimate value of the option is partially dictated by the realized volatility. This is the
mechanism the option seller uses to capture the premium.
The volatility premium will generally increase as volatility rises and decrease as volatility
falls. In other words, higher levels of premium can often be realized during high volatility
regimes. Post credit crisis, the S&P 500 implied-to-realized spread is higher than long term
norms. Insurance providers over recent history have been “paid” by insurance seekers on
average at historically attractive levels.

Exhibit 1: S&P 500 Volatility Premium Spread


50 Difference between Implied and Subsequent Realized
40 Average since March 2009
Long-term average of 4.4 lows is 6.6 volatility points
30 volatility points
20
10
0
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010
-10
-20 Following the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy,
-30 realized volatility surged and the spreads to
implied volatility reached historic lows
-40
-50

Source: B of A Merrill Lynch Global Research, Jan 2, 1999 to Sept 30, 2010. Standard & Poor’s
Corporation is the owner of the trademarks, service marks, and copyrights related to its indexes. Indexes
are unmanaged and cannot be invested directly. Data is historical and is not a guarantee of future results.

A visual look at call overwriting


An illustration of the payoff profile for a “covered” portfolio is helpful. Not only does Exhibit 2
demonstrate the profile at option expiration, it also shows the payoff at various times
between initiation and expiration. What is important to see in the graph is the inherent
tradeoff that is made with overwriting. In return for an upfront payment the upside potential
for the underlying portfolio is truncated. So for large upside moves the overwritten portfolio
will underperform (denoted by colored lines below delta-1 benchmark line). For large
downside moves, the overwritten portfolio will outperform (denoted by colored lines above
delta-1 benchmark line). The net effect of this structure is an overall reduction in portfolio
volatility. With this core concept in mind, the process of strategy optimization then becomes
an exercise in maximizing the premium received while minimizing the upside truncation.
Another important consideration is the generic risk of managing short option positions.
Without diving too deeply into a discussion of the “greeks” it is worth commenting on theta

Russell Investments // Capturing the volatility premium through call overwriting / p2


and gamma. Simply put, they are risk metrics that require monitoring. Theta is the rate of
change of option price with the passage of time. This time decay works in favor of the call
seller. Gamma is the rate of change of the underlying delta with respect to market
movement. As the time to expiration shrinks both theta and gamma become increasingly
large for short at-the-money options. What is important to understand and evaluate is the
impact a strategy’s design elements will have on gamma and theta. Without this insight,
management of an options portfolio can be extremely challenging. For further background
material, please reference the Appendix.

Exhibit 2: Payoff Profile of One-Month Call Overwriting vs. Long Equity Exposure
Payoff profile
4%

30 days to expiration
20 days to expiration
2%
10 days to expiration
1 day to expiration
P/L PERCENTAGE

Expiration
Delta-1
0%
-6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6%

-2%

-4%
% from spot

Source: Russell Investments. The above is shown for illustrative purposes only and is not meant to
represent any actual profile.

A starting point – CBOE BXM Index


As a baseline, we consider the BXM index which is a widely known buy write index.
Marketed by the CBOE as a passive total return index, the strategy buys an S&P 500 index
portfolio and sells 1-month index call options nearest to the money. The options are held to
expiration and settled against the Special Opening Quotation at expiration. The options are
2
then written again on expiration day using a VWAP strategy over a specified time period.
Option participants commonly use the 1987 market crash as a marker to differentiate
volatility environments. In the post-1987 volatility regime the BXM index has, on average,
outperformed the S&P 500 Total Return Index (SPTR). A notable exception was the period
from the mid 1990’s to the end of the Tech Bubble in 2000. Over the time period shown in
Exhibit 3, the SPTR returned 9.4% annualized while the BXM returned 9.9%. More
importantly, the BXM posted these returns with only two-thirds of the portfolio volatility.

2
Volume Weighted Average Price

Russell Investments // Capturing the volatility premium through call overwriting / p3


While simple to understand and replicate, we believe that the BXM strategy has room for
improvement in terms of both risk adjusted return and flexibility to adjust to changing market
conditions.

Exhibit 3: S&P 500 TR Index versus BXM from January 1988 to September 2010
1100 1100

1000 1000

900 900
S&P 500 Total Return
800 800
Performance Deviation
700 700
BXM Total Return
P o r t f o l io V a lu e

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0

-100 -100
De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De

De
-200 -200
c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-

c-
87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09
S&P 500 TR BXM TR
Return (Annualized) 9.4% 9.9%
Risk (Annualized) 15.1% 10.6%

Source: Russell Investments, CBOE, Bloomberg. For illustrative purposes only. Indexes are unmanaged
and cannot be invested in directly. Example is based on historical data and it is not a guarantee of future
results.

An important consideration when implementing a call overwriting strategy is the investor’s


ability to withstand the performance deviation during periods when the strategy significantly
underperforms. This point becomes clear in Exhibit 4. From January 1987 to September
1987 the BXM strategy trailed the S&P 500 total return significantly. On the other hand, the
downside “cushion” provided during the 4th quarter of 1987 is an example of positive
performance deviation and illustrates the moderating effect overwriting can have on portfolio
standard deviation. Overall, it is important to see how the benefits of improved risk adjusted
returns over longer periods of time can come at the cost of significant negative tracking
error during many shorter time periods. This is evident in the number of quarters in which
the BXM strategy underperforms by 500 to 1000 bps.

Russell Investments // Capturing the volatility premium through call overwriting / p4


Exhibit 4: BXM Excess Return versus S&P 500 TR from July 1986 to September 2010

10.0%

5.0%
BXM Excess Return vs. SP500

0.0%

-5.0%

-10.0%

-15.0%
Quarter

Return Difference BXM Annualized Outperformance (+18 bps)

Source: Russell Investments, CBOE, Bloomberg. For illustrative purposes only. Indexes are unmanaged
and cannot be invested in directly. Example is based on historical data and it is not a guarantee of future
results.

In relation to the baseline BXM case, our view is that all strategies are not created equal.
We believe that with an understanding of historical implied and realized volatility an investor
can make a more informed decision as to when and how to participate in overwriting. By
also looking at technical indicators, the investor can better quantify market expectations and
make a more thoughtful decision on how aggressively to overwrite. These concepts coupled
with an understanding of the relevant risk metrics are the building blocks for developing a
successful strategy.

GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING THE OPTIMAL STRATEGY RANGE

Strike Considerations
One of the reasons that option strike matters when designing a strategy is that closer to the
money options tend to generate higher risk adjusted returns. Close to the money options
maximize the amount of time premium taken in, thereby increasing the ability to earn
positive theta or time decay. This is evidenced in Exhibit 5 which shows the 100% at-the-
money (ATM) strike outperforming other strikes on a fairly consistent basis.
More specifically, Exhibit 5 displays the historical outperformance of equal weighted, daily
rolled, weekly option strikes. We see that writing in-the-money (ITM) options tends to lower
volatility and provides more “cushion” on the downside. The trade-off for this benefit is
greater truncation of upside potential because less time value and more intrinsic value is
captured. ATM options provide the highest amount of time value and no intrinsic value
capture. The trade-off here is a smaller downside buffer. Lastly, out-of-the-money (OTM)
options provide more upside potential for the underlying portfolio, but take in less premium
and therefore contain less time value. OTM options offer even less downside buffer to the
investor.

Russell Investments // Capturing the volatility premium through call overwriting / p5


A related pricing nuance associated with OTM call options is that they often trade at lower
volatilities than ITM and ATM call options because of volatility skew (See Collie and
Thomas, Q4 2010).

Exhibit 5: Daily Rolls of One Week Options – Strikes: 95%, 98%, 100%, 102 & 105%

100%
2000
98%
1800
102%
1600

95%
P o rt f o lio V a lu e

1400
105%
1200
SPTR

1000

800

600
Mar-04 Sep-04 Mar-05 Sep-05 Mar-06 Sep-06 Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Mar-10 Sep-10

SPTR Index 1W 95% Index 1W 98% Index 1W ATM Index 1W 102% Index 1W 105%

Source: Societe Generale Financial Engineering March 26, 2004 to Oct 25, 2010.
For illustrative purposes only. Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly. Example is
based on historical data and it is not a guarantee of future results.

Tenor Considerations
As a starting point for a discussion on tenor, keep in mind that in the world of listed equity
index options there are three common tenors: weekly, monthly, and quarterly options.
Quarterly options are listed out to one year, while weeklies are listed on Thursdays for the
proceeding week. Over-the-counter options can be utilized for strategies requiring longer
dated tenors.
Exhibit 6 compares the 15-year historical annual premiums received by rolling weekly,
monthly, quarterly, and annual ATM options. This historical data shows that shorter term
options maximize the total amount of premium received on an annual basis. A one week
tenor option rolled four times per month has generated more than 2.0x the premium of a
one month tenor option rolled once per month. Likewise, a one month option rolled three
times per quarter on average generates 1.6x the premium of a three month option. This
helps make clear that close to the money strategies with short tenors have consistently
generated a higher level of gross income. This is a direct result of the higher theta capture
versus longer dated strategies.

Russell Investments // Capturing the volatility premium through call overwriting / p6


It also results in a higher reset frequency of the option strike. One of the reasons strategies
using shorter maturity options tend to outperform over longer time periods is that more
frequent resets help keep up with market price and volatility movements, better positioning
the portfolio to capture the time decay. That said, it is important to note that short tenor
strategies increase the probability of capping the upside in any given period. This is the
result of the increased probability of paying an exercise cost when these shorter dated ATM
options expire in-the-money.

Exhibit 6: Comparison of Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Tenor ATM Option
Premiums Received on an Annual Basis3
120.0%

1W average premium 1.20%, 62.0% per annum


1M average premium 2.38%, 28.5% per annum
3M average premium 4.30%, 17.2% per annum
100.0% 1Y average premium 9.50%
Premiums include transaction costs both explicit (commission
costs) and implicit (market trading costs)
Annual Premium Received

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Average annual 1 week Average annual 1 month Average annual 3 month Average 1 year

Source: Russell Investments. Historical data provided by JP Morgan Research, daily data Jan 1996 to
Sept 30, 2010 data annualized. For illustrative purposes only. Data is historical and is not a guarantee of
future results.

Taking the results of the average premium conclusion a step further, Exhibit 7 compares the
various tenor strategies against a plain vanilla SPTR portfolio across a number of volatility
regimes. Not surprisingly, we see that a covered call strategy tends to outperform in bearish
and flat markets and underperform in bullish and very bullish markets. Additionally we see
that during this time frame shorter tenors consistently outperformed longer tenor strategies
in all but very bullish market environments.

3
Transaction costs include round trip commission costs for each time options are rolled which varies by tenor as
well as ½ bid-ask spreads which are derived from historical option data.

Russell Investments // Capturing the volatility premium through call overwriting / p7


Exhibit 7: Daily Rolls of ATM Options - 1W, 1M, 3M Maturities

2000 1W ATM
Overall IRR
1800 S&P TR 2.66% 1M ATM
Index 1W 9.03%
1600 Index 1M 8.65%
Index 3M 7.23%
P o rt f o l i o V a lu e

1400 3M ATM
1200
SPTR
1000

800

600
Flat Market Bullish Market Bearish Market Very Bullish Market
400 8.14% 14.65% -33.76% 38.17% S&P TR
11.73% 11.16% -8.23% 25.02% Index 1W
200 11.43% 10.70% -12.34% 30.54% Index 1M
10.53% 9.06% -19.17% 35.98% Index 3M
0
Mar-04 Sep-04 Mar-05 Sep-05 Mar-06 Sep-06 Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Mar-10 Sep-10

SPTR Index 1W Index 1M Index 3M

VIX Levels
23.81 24.17 80.86 52.65 Max
13.67 13.04 31.22 26.23 Average
10.23 9.89 16.12 15.58 Min

Source: Societe Generale Financial Engineering Mar 26, ‘04 to Oct 25, ‘10. Flat: 3/26/04 - 6/30/06 Bullish:
7/3/06 - 7/30/07 Bearish: 8/1/07 - 2/28/09 Very Bullish: 3/2/09 - 6/30/10. For illustrative purposes only.
Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly. Example is based on historical data and it is
not a guarantee of future results. VIX: CBOE Volatility Index.

Optimal Combinations of Tenor and Strike


Exhibit 8 shows the optimal strategy range for both tenor and strike based on Sharpe
Ratios. The heat map emphasizes how shorter term options that are at or near-the-money
tend to provide an optimal framework for a call overwriting program. We view the optimal
strategy range as 98% to 105% with a one month Sharpe Ratio range of .30 to .39 versus
.22 for the plain vanilla S&P 500.
Exhibit 8: Sharpe Ratios of Systematic S&P 500 Covered Call Strategies, March 1990
to September 2010.

Call Option Strike


95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 101% 102% 103% 104% 105% 106% 107% 108% 109% 110%
1M 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.39 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.27
Call Option Maturity

2M 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.26
3M 0.21 0.24 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25
6M 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20
9M 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27
12M 0.16 0.16 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31

Greater than 0.34 Btwn 0.26 and 0.30 Less than 0.22
Btwn 0.30 and 0.34 Btwn 0.22 and 0.26

Source: BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research. Long term history not available for weekly options. (Weekly
options began trading in October 2005). For illustrative purposes only. Data is historical and is not indicative
of future results.

Russell Investments // Capturing the volatility premium through call overwriting / p8


Despite the historical evidence and empirical support for short tenors near 100% strikes,
overwriters should consider that the optimal strategy range can be flexible to meet specific
objectives. In fact, we believe tactical adjustments can be made without losing the benefits
of being in the optimal range or violating any predefined portfolio risk objectives. For
example if an investor is targeting a lower portfolio weight for equities, a shift of the strike to
the 97-98% range with no periodic rebalancing will increase the likelihood of a gradual
reduction in equity exposure over time.

Roll Considerations
The last important design factor to consider is roll strategy. Exhibit 9 shows clearly that
there is a strong “day of the week” effect for a weekly options strategy. Historically, Monday
and Friday rolls have underperformed the other days of the week.

Exhibit 9: Daily Rolls of 1 Week ATM Options


2500
Wednesday
Wednesday
2250
Thursday

2000 Tuesday
P o rt f o lio V a lu e

Friday
1750
Equal

1500
Monday

1250

1000

750
Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05 Jul-05 Jan-06 Jul-06 Jan-07 Jul-07 Jan-08 Jul-08 Jan-09 Jul-09 Jan-10 Jul-10

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Equal Weighted

Source: Societe Generale Financial Engineering January 14, 2004 to Oct 25, 2010. For illustrative purposes
only. Data is historical and is not a guarantee of future results.

CALL OVERWRITING WITH DYNAMIC IMPLEMENTATION


We believe that traditional call overwriting can be enhanced within a dynamic
implementation framework to add value across varied market environments. Path
dependence can be significant over short term periods, but our work suggests that there are
more efficient ways to determine where to strike the options that can, for example, allow for
more upside potential during rising markets.
Exhibit 10 shows the historical performance results for a dynamic, rules-based trading
strategy using monthly options. The purpose of this basic example is to show how dynamic,
signals based implementation can improve upon static overwrite strategies such as the
BXM. In our example we have analyzed market momentum and volatility metrics to create
implementation signals. The momentum signal uses moving averages as a guide to strike
either 98% ITM, 100% ATM or 102% OTM options within the monthly rolling cycle. The
volatility signal incorporates triggers to monetize higher levels of premium in certain high
volatility regimes and capture mean reversion in short term volatility. The volatility signal

Russell Investments // Capturing the volatility premium through call overwriting / p9


also guides the dynamic strategy to not overwrite in a very small percentage of extreme
market conditions.
In Exhibit 10 we compare the dynamic strategy results to the static strategies which sell a
predetermined option strike systematically over time. We also show the results of a no
overwrite program. A static 100% ATM strategy is similar to the approach used with the
BXM, which will always trade ATM options regardless of market environment. The results
indicate value can be added over time with a dynamic strategy.

Exhibit 10: Monthly Overwriting Strategy Examples Jan 1998 to Oct 2010
Write 98% Write 100% Write 102% No Dynamic
ITM Call ATM Call OTM Call Overwrite Strategy

Annualized Return 7.4% 7.6% 7.4% 3.5% 8.7%

Volatility 10.6% 12.7% 14.7% 18.9% 15.1%

Sharpe Ratio 0.41 0.39 0.34 0.10 0.41

% of time past strike at expiration 73.9% 60.1% 38.6% - 45.8%


% of past strike & premium at expiration 44.4% 37.3% 26.1% - 30.1%

Monthly Return 5th Percentile -4.8% -6.1% -7.1% -8.7% -6.9%


th
Monthly Return 95 Percentile 3.3% 4.1% 4.9% 7.6% 4.8%
Skew -2.9 -2.3 -1.8 -0.9 -1.9
Excess Kurtosis 11.5 7.3 4.5 3.0 9.1
Correlation 85.5% 90.5% 94.6% 100.0% 90.9%
Tracking Error 11.3% 9.2% 6.9% 0.0% 8.1%

500

400
Portfolio Value

300 Dynamic Strategy

Static Strategies
200
No Overwrite

100

0
Jan-98 Jan-03 Jan-08

No Overwrite Write 98% ITM Call Write 100% ATM Call


Write 102% OTM Call Strategy

Source: Russell Investments. Historical data and indicative options pricing provided by UBS Research.
Month over month performance figures calculated from option expiration date. For illustrative purposes only.

Russell Investments // Capturing the volatility premium through call overwriting / p 10


Final considerations

In summary, we believe that call overwriting can provide income generation and a
cushioning effect on the downside. Over longer periods, overwriting strategies can
significantly reduce portfolio volatility without necessarily sacrificing performance potential in
relation to a long only equity program. This outcome is achieved by (1) selling insurance to
the marketplace in the form of a call option and (2) capturing the volatility risk premium
embedded in these options. It is important to remember that over shorter periods an
investor can experience significant underperformance relative to a benchmarked long equity
position. We highlight that overwriting strategies can be implemented as a customized
solution for an investor’s unique objectives or with systematic rules-based trading
strategies. Furthermore, our research suggests that dynamic implementation can
significantly improve upon static strategies, providing additional value over time.

APPENDIX

Some Specifics about Options Greeks and Option Terminology


The most common of the greeks are the first order derivatives: Delta, Vega, Theta and Rho.
Gamma is also a critical risk metric, a second order derivative of the value greek, delta.
Delta: The rate of change of the price of a derivative with the underlying asset.
Vega: Measures the sensitivity of an option’s price to volatility.
Theta: The rate of change of price of an option with the passage of time.
Rho: Measures sensitivity to the applicable interest rate.
Gamma: The rate of change of delta with respect to the asset price.
Intrinsic Value: For call options, this is the difference between the underlying stock’s price
and strike price of the option.
Time Value: For call options, this is the excess value above the amount of intrinsic value.
Tenor: The expiration date or life of the option is called the tenor. An option is usually
referred to by the month that the expiration date occurs.
Moneyness: The percent moneyness determines the strike versus the underlying market. A
strike trading around the underlying is considered at-the-money (ATM), away from is
considered out-of-the-money (OTM) and below, in-the-money (ITM).
Path Dependence: Explains how the set of decisions one faces for any given circumstance
is limited by the decisions one has made in the past, even though past circumstances may
no longer be relevant. In economics and investment theory, this can refer either to
outcomes at a single moment in time or to long run equilibrium of a process.
Special Opening Quotation (SOQ): The SOQ of an index is generally based on the
opening values of the component stocks, regardless of when those stocks open on
expiration day.
Delta-1: Generally, financial derivatives or beta exposure that has no optionality and as
such have a delta of one (or very close to one). They often incorporate a number of
underlying securities, such as in an index and give the holder an easy way to gain exposure
to a basket of securities in a single product.

Russell Investments // Capturing the volatility premium through call overwriting / p 11


RELATED READING
Collie, Bob (April 2009), “Basic Greeks: Essential knowledge for investors considering
options”, Russell Research.
Thomas, Michael and Collie, Bob (Fourth Quarter 2010), “The volatility smile and the cost of
tail risk protection”, Russell Communiqué.

For more information:


Call Russell at 800-426-8506 or
visit www.russell.com/institutional

Important information

Nothing contained in this material is intended to constitute legal, tax, securities, or investment advice, nor an opinion regarding the
appropriateness of any investment, nor a solicitation of any type. The general information contained in this publication should not be
acted upon without obtaining specific legal, tax, and investment advice from a licensed professional.

Russell Investments is the owner of the trademarks, service marks, and copyrights related to its respective indexes.

Indexes and/or benchmarks are unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly. Returns represent past performance, are not a guarantee
of future performance, and are not indicative of any specific investment.

Standard & Poor’s Corporation is the owner of the trademarks, service marks, and copyrights related to its indexes. Indexes are
unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly.

Unless otherwise noted, source for the data in this presentation is Russell Implementation Services Inc.

This material is a product of Russell Implementation Services Inc., a registered investment advisor and broker-dealer, member FINRA,
SIPC

Copyright © 2010 Russell Investments. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and may not be reproduced, transferred, or
distributed in any form without prior written permission from Russell Investments. It is delivered on an “as is” basis without warranty.

Russell Investment Group is a Washington, USA corporation, which operates through subsidiaries worldwide, including Russell
Investments and is a subsidiary of The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company.

The Russell logo is a trademark and service mark of Russell Investment Group.

First used: December 2010 USI RC-8473

Russell Investments // Capturing the volatility premium through call overwriting / p 12