Active traders and investors who hold positions in the equity market historically have had two primary methods through which they could hedge their exposure ahead of potentially market-moving events like earnings releases.

1. Equity options 

2. Equity Index futures and options

If a trader wished to hedge a long position in a single name equity, for example, they could either buy puts or sell calls against that position. However, buying options ahead of an earnings announcement typically means the trader will be paying for heightened implied volatility and selling a call provides some, but incomplete protection, against an outsized price decline. 

Equity Index futures can be an effective approximate hedge to a position in a single stock, but the trader is exposed to the risk that the index becomes temporarily uncorrelated to that stock, even when historical statistical correlations suggest that it might hold.

In this case study, we’ll compare the differences in using a long Equity option versus a Single Stock futures contract to hedge a long position in a single name stock. We will use Tesla (TSLA) in our example.

Suppose a trader was long 100 shares of TSLA approaching the Q4 2025 earnings report scheduled for January, 28, 2026. On that day, the following was true of the stock price and options expiring two days hence (Friday, January 30) at the close:

Underlying: $431.46/Share
ATM (432.50) put premium: 12.75
DTE: 2

Using an options calculator, the following are approximate option “Greeks” levels:

Implied volatility: 95.81%
ATM (432.50) put delta: -.50
ATM put gamma: .0130
ATM put theta: -3.0517
ATM put vega: 12.74

Note that the implied volatility at 96% suggests that the options market is pricing in a rather large ~6% daily move in the price of the stock since implied volatility is an annualized number. 

On Thursday, after earnings were released and the earnings call was concluded Wednesday evening, TSLA share price had dropped to $416.60 at the close, a decline of $14.86, or ~3.5%. Therefore, an unhedged long position of 100 shares in the underlying stock would have seen a P&L decline of $1,486.

So, how would a long ATM put have performed the day after earnings? Because the stock price declined, the negative delta value in the long put would act to increase the value of the option. However, because options are multidimensional instruments, the impact of the substantial decline in volatility (vol crush) and time, especially in a short-dated option, act to decrease the theoretical value of the option. 

If we look at what happened to the value of that hypothetical option hedge, the put did gain in value, but the gains were tempered by the drop in volatility and passage of one day. 

Starting value: 12.75
Impact delta: ~10.18
Impact vega (vol): ~ -3.5
Impact theta (time): ~ -2.2

So, using the Greeks to calculate a theoretical price, the value of the option increased by about 4.5. Sure enough, the value of that option at the close on Thursday was 17.70. Therefore, the long put did act as a hedge against a decline in the share price of TSLA, but the amount was tempered by the impact of volatility and time:

P&L impact from price decline: - $1,486.00
P&L impact from option value: + $495.00
Total P&L: - $991.00

Let’s consider the impact of the long put hedge in the event that the TSLA share price saw muted change after its earnings announcement. For this example, we’ll assume the price declined, but only by $4 per share, slightly less than 1%. Using that same options calculator, let’s examine the theoretical impact to the option value. 

Conservatively, we used the same 60% implied volatility to which the option fell, even though we might reasonably expect it to fall even further with such a muted change in share price. 

Even though the share price declined, the impact of the decline in vol and time value, far outweighed the delta impact and the theoretical value of the option would have actually declined by about 5 points, or $500.00. 

Therefore, in this situation, the position would have not only been impacted by the decline in share price of $1,486 but and additional theoretical loss from the option value of $500.00, for a total unrealized hypothetical loss of $1,986.00. 

Assume Single Stock futures were available in January. Using simple time value of money, since TSLA does not pay a dividend, a reasonable theoretical price of March TSLA futures would be $434.00. 

Suppose then, the trader that was long 100 shares of TSLA heading into earnings, instead of hedging their position with an option, decided to hedge that position with one short futures contract that has a 100 share underlying value. In that case, one could reasonably expect the future to move by nearly the same amount as the underlying stock. 

Further, the availability of Micro Single Stock Futures at 10 shares per contract, allows a trader to hedge the desired percentage of that underlying position without the impact of theta decay or “vol crush” that we see in options.

Of course, if instead of a decline, the share price of TSLA saw a spike higher after its earnings were released, a 1:1 hedge with a 100-share futures contract would fully negate any potential profits from the gain in share price, while an options hedge would allow the position to realize profits at least greater than the premium paid

Trading derivatives—including futures, options, swaps, and cleared OTC products—involves significant risk and is not suitable for all investors; as leveraged instruments, losses can exceed your initial deposit. Swaps trading is strictly limited to Eligible Contract Participants (ECPs) or those authorized under local law.

This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute a prospectus, public offering, investment advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any specific asset or service. It does not take into account your specific objectives or financial situation, and you should obtain independent professional advice before acting on this information. 

The CME Group exchanges include four Designated Contract Markets (DCMs), the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc (“CME”), the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc. (“CBOT”), the New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (“NYMEX”), and the Commodity Exchange, Inc. (“COMEX”). The Clearing Division of CME is a derivative clearing organization (“DCO”) for CME Group DCMs.

While CME Group strives for accuracy, it assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions, and all content is subject to and superseded by the official rulebooks of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME), Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc.(CBOT), New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (NYMEX), and Commodity Exchange, Inc. (COMEX). 

CME Group does not represent that this material is appropriate for use in any jurisdiction where such distribution would be contrary to local law. Distribution elsewhere is directed exclusively to persons who have had a previous commercial relationship with CME Group or are directly and at their own initiative enquiring about the products mentioned here. 

Globally, these exchanges are recognized as equivalent to EU standards under Decision (EU) 2017/2320 (MiFID II), with CME recognized as a Tier 1 third-country CCP by ESMA under EMIR. CME Group entities hold specific licenses, exemptions, or authorizations in several jurisdictions and, in some Regions, including but not limited to parts of Asia and Latin America, distribution is restricted to institutional, professional or qualified investors.

Regulated subsidiaries, such as BrokerTec and CME Amsterdam B.V., are governed by their respective authorities (FCA, AFM, SEC, FINRA). 

For full regulatory details, visit cmegroup.com/disclaimer. Certain communications may be recorded for compliance purposes.

Copyright © 2026 CME Group Inc. All rights reserved. 

Mailing Address: 20 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606