Thanks @Fred495. Am I wrong to think then that the smoothest ride, least variability, would be to own all 3 funds so that there is a continuous monthly purchase of 3-month options? Almost like maintaining a CD ladder. As you stated, the risk return profiles should all be the same over time, non-dependent of 3 month-sequence the options are purchased, so over time it probably doesn't mater which fund you are in.

Not sure that's a good comparison, but there is a ton to read here about possible issuers' defaults:
https://doc.morningstar.com/docdetail.aspx?clientid=schwab&key=84b36f1bf3830e07&cusip=258620822
vs
https://www.finra.org/investors/alerts/exchange-traded-notes-avoid-unpleasant-surprises
and maybe the fund does have risk 'advantages'.

Also JHDAX and JHTAX remain open, but I have no idea how they compare with JHDAX .

carew, I assume you meant to say: "how they compare with JHQAX."
Hopefully, the excerpt below from the M* Fund Analysis report of 9/2/2021 by Erol Alitovsky will be helpful:
JHDAX and JHTAX "have the same objective of providing smoother returns by tempering downside and upside returns via a systematically implemented options strategy. The newer funds follow the same approach of the original Hedged Equity strategy, however, instead of purchasing options on the last business day of the quarter, Hedged Equity Fund 2 purchases three-month options on the last business day in January, April, July, and October, and Fund 3 trades its options on the last business day of February, May, August, and November.
The team purchases put options 5% below the S&P 500's value. To offset the cost of the put option, the team first sells put options 20% out-of-the-money. This structure should generally protect the fund from thre-month losses in the 5-20% range; if markets fall less than 5%, the fund should fall in line with the market, and if the market falls more than 20%, the fund should incur the same incremental losses beyond negative 5%. The team also sells call options to generate enough option premium income to cover the remaining cost of the hedges. [...]
Over the short term, the return profile of Fund 2 and 3 may vary from the original Hedged Equity fund depending on the price path of the S&P 500, but over the long run all three funds should have very similar risk/reward characteristics. Investors looking to make an allocation to this strategy would be wise to pair both Hedged Equity Fund 2 and 3 as this lowers market price path dependency, or the investment's sensitivity to short periods of market volatility.
Reasonable fees coupled with JPMorgan's transparent process make these funds an interesting option."
Good luck,
Fred

What a surprise. (NOT.) Microsoft is buggy and deficient. Microsoft has pretty much always been buggy and deficient.
For all of Oahu, the bus system and the handicap service, the HandiVan, is still not 100%, after a cyberattack last week. Service is running, but the fare-card readers still don't work. Criminal suck-holes. Find them. Execute them.
https://www.kitv.com/news/crime/cyber-attack-shuts-down-servers-at-thehandi-van-thebus/article_5ed63970-5920-11ec-ab97-675ae372cdca.html

Giroux was interviewed in Barron podcast this July.
https://www.barrons.com/podcasts/barrons-live/stocks-to-watch-investing-with-t-rowe-price-david-giroux/97b452aa-8887-4cde-84fb-06aa9bb07880?page=1

Howdy @hank
Just fiddl'in here. I compared a few of the previously mentioned funds; being JHQAX , SPY (baseline), TMSRX and ABRZX.
Each chart is a 6 month before and after using SPY as the benchmark; at its low price during the period.
Chart 1 compare (July 2, 2018-July 3, 2019) is for the Xmas eve market melt in 2018. The SPY high in this period was about Oct. 3, 2018 and time frame low was on Dec. 24.
For SPY, the high to low was -19.2%.
CHART 1
Chart 2 is the Covid melt period, being from Sept. 20, 2019-Sept. 20, 2020. The SPY high in this period was about Feb. 19, 2020 and time frame low was on March 23, 2020.
For SPY, the high to low was -33.7%.
CHART 2
Following the charts to the right edge, one may view the recovery price date area and to the far right edge; performance for 6 months after the low price for each entry.
Pillow time here.
Remain curious,
Catch

Brokerages do not seem to designate Rolledover Roths as such. All the brokerages I know just have Roth IRA but no Rollover Roth IRA and Roth 401(k) funds are rolled over to a Roth IRA account. Why is there this distinction between Traditional vs Roth at brokerage level? Do rolledover Roth 401(k) funds not receive the same protection as rolledover 401(k) funds?

Why no rollover Roth IRAs? Likely because of the sequence of changes in the law.

Sometimes called a “rollover IRA,” a conduit IRA holds only retirement plan rollover assets. These Traditional IRAs were established to temporarily hold retirement plan rollover assets, such as savings in a 401(k) or profit sharing plan. By segregating the assets, the individual can later move the savings back to another retirement plan and retain certain tax benefits. If the individual makes other types of IRA contributions, such as regular IRA contributions, the IRA loses its conduit status.

https://www.cuinsight.com/value-conduit-ira.html
This is supported by old Pub 590s. See, e.g. the 2000 version, p. 17.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p590--2000.pdf
So originally there was a need for "pure" (untainted) conduit IRAs, and brokerages tagged IRAs as such. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) did away with this need. It allows employer plans to accept transfers from IRAs regardless of whether the assets originated in other employer plans.
Here's the current IRS chart of permitted transfers: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rollover_chart.pdf
EGTRRA also created Roth 401(k)s; before this they did not exist. (They didn't come into existence until even later, in 2006.) So by the time Roth 401(k)s were created, there was no longer a need for conduit IRAs. Thus no need for brokerages to tag Roth IRAs as rollovers.
As to unlimited BAPCPA bankruptcy protection, that is something that applies to assets that originate in employer plans. There's no distinction between between Roth assets and traditional assets. This may be inferred from the absence of "Roth" in the text of BAPCPA.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ8/html/PLAW-109publ8.htm

Biotech stocks, not necessarily the technology itself, vastly outperformed the market and the healthcare indices from the GFC through 2015. Since then, it has been hard to make money consistently in the sector. I've tried, but not successfully. Cathie Wood has been burned on IONS, a stock I hope to see recover after tax-loss selling, but it's no sure thing. M* is very positive on the stock, rating it very undervalued. Same for INCY.
@Bobby: I think it's laudable to add to a fund that has been punished by fickle investors. I have a decent chunk in BHCFX, to which I've added this Fall.
The biotech CEF, HQL, has been pummeled with the assets declining to the point where the fund trades at a small discount, whereas it has traded at a usual discount of around 8%. I see this discount shrinkage as quite unusual because it is not due to increased demand for the shares.

JHQAX (reviewed series) annual distributions have been about 1% (though M* shows the fund has about 40% annual turnover). My thought was to put it in a taxable account. The inevitable question is, how tax risky is it to put it in a taxable account? It seems this fund provides a 15% downside protection, if S&P 500 falls 20% or more (no protection for first 5% loss). In a choppy, sideways market, it could lose more than the SPY because of the cost of its option outlays and the Calls written may not fetch as much premium as they have in the past. It would be a tragedy if the fund ends up distributing a lot of cap gains in a year when it is not performing well, which is probably the scenario when it would trigger cap gains because of AUM outflows. Prior to November 2021, the only month of net outflows was March 2020. The other month of net outflows was November 2021, which was a surprise to me. What do its shareholders expect from it? What would constitute "not performing well" for this fund? I do not know the psychological make up of a typical investor in this fund as it is not a mainstream strategy. (May be I should head over to the Bogleheads forum and see if there is an interest there for this strategy - I am told those guys tend to be buy and holders!)
As an aside, its performance from inception (2014) until the beginning of Covid is about the same (more or less) as a good high yield fund but bond funds had falling rates as a tail wind - may be not a fair comparison.
Please share your reasonable comments / thoughts.

With due respect, I do not find your analysis of the inner workings or risk mitigation features of this fund far superior to mine. I trust Lipper, The Financial Times and other sources referenced to be fact based. It’s not about speaking with God or not. It’s about delving into the workings of a fund that promotes itself as a safer alternative to many competitive investments. It may well be that. What’s wrong with poking and prodding a bit before sending your hard earned money?

and you do have to file a separate partnership tax return on March 15 that is hard
Single member LLCs may be treated as "disregarded entities" by the IRS; they have no partnership tax returns to file.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/single-member-limited-liability-companies
As Nolo writes, in some states single member LLCs may provide a lesser level of asset protection than multiple member LLCs. But it varies by state, and if yours is a state where there's no difference, then why bring extra paperwork and a partner into the mix?

An LLC provides the same protection as a corporation against creditors of the business. However, there is some uncertainty as to whether a [single member LLC] SMLLC member will receive the same protection from liability that members of an LLC with multiple members receive. While the law is clear in most states, this is still an evolving issue.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/single-member-llcs.html

Courts in a few states have found that the charging order protection that exists for LLCs does not apply with SMLLs because there are no co-owners to protect. These cases created a great deal of uncertainty in other states with similar charging order protection laws. In response, several states amended their LLC laws to make it clear that SMLLCs are entitled to the same protection from creditors as multi-member LLCs

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-asset-protection-charging-orders.html

As we're looking at protection given to rollovers by the BAPCPA, we're talking about bankruptcy proceedings. Some retirement assets (employer plans, money rolled into IRAs, another $1.36+M in IRAs) are protected, but this money becomes fair game if it's withdrawn before the case is decided/settled.

It is generally a bad idea to withdraw from a 401(k) or other retirement account or try to “cash-out” the account for any purpose since the money becomes income and is no longer exempt in your bankruptcy.

https://kretzerfirm.com/what-happens-to-your-401k-or-ira-in-bankruptcy/
So you're free to manage (reallocate) your protected assets while the case is ongoing. But if you withdraw money, it becomes just as subject to being frozen as money that was never protected.
---
Any IRA money that a debtor claims in good faith to be rollover money is considered exempt (protected). It's up to the bankruptcy trustee to prove otherwise.
One gets this protection, best practices or not. Nevertheless, following best practices (and having the statements to prove it) would likely dissuade a trustee from objecting to the exemption, depending on the amount of money involved.

The Court Must Construe Exemptions Liberally In Favor Of the Debtor, And The Trustee Bears The Burden Of Proof Here.
... Properly exempted property is not available to pay the claims of the debtor's creditors. The Court must construe the claim of exemption in the Recipient IRA liberally in favor of the Debtor. [citations omitted.] And the Trustee, as the party objecting to a claim of exemption, bears the burden of proving that the Debtor improperly claims this exemption. [citations omitted.]

https://www.casb.uscourts.gov/sites/casb/files/documents/opinions/09_15148.pdf
While I think this is still correct, take it with a grain of salt. It's from a decision not for publication, and at least one part of the decision was subsequently overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court: As of 2014 inherited IRAs do not get the same protection because they are not regarded as retirement accounts. But they did in this earlier 2010 case.

The dominant effect of the FAANG stocks over the S&P500 magnified even more after spring 2020. There was a short period (winter 2020 thru summer 2021) where the market broadened to allow the cyclical value stocks to out-perform (large and small caps). Now the large cap growth stocks have returned. My smaller cap funds are trailing their larger cap funds.

Both of the lawyers I talked to over several years, told me that 401ks are protected, but did not mention contributory IRAs are more vulnerable.
An Umbrella policy increases the liability limit on your current homeowner's and auto insurance. Good to have but read the fine print on what is covered. Medical bills unless from a car accident or injury on property are not.
As I understand it anyone obtaining a judgement against your LLC assets cannot demand distributions from it, other than the distributions that the LLC makes anyway. Thus you the manger are not required to pay off such a creditor, but I think that creditor can share in any distributions that are made. It does make it more complicated and expensive for someone to try to attach your assets.
It is pretty easy to set up and costs around $1000 but I would use a competent lawyer, not do it yourself. Another advantage to an LLC holding your investments is that the LLC can deduct expenses like investment expenses. You should not use it to pay any expenses that are not directly related to the investments, and you do have to file a separate partnership tax return on March 15 that is hard, but not impossible to do with TurboTax Business. If you use a CPA it will cost several hundred dollars.
Many states require an LLC to file an annual report and some require a fairly high annual fee ( up to $500), so check carefully.
There are other entities I have heard of ( Delaware companies, offshore companies) that are even more protective but much more expensive to maintain.

Thanks everyone for excellent discussion. A quick cursory glance at JHQAX reveals a few insights:
At Lipper, it scores in the highest percentile pretty much across the board. MaxFunds rates this outstanding (97%). The site estimates the fund’s “worst case” as -35% in a year compared to -30% for TMSRX. Lipper gives it a very low beta - but higher than TMSRX. A couple places to check downside are 2018 Qtr. 4 and 2020 Qtr 1. For both it bested equities by a lot, loosing roughly 5%. TMSRX held up slightly better, loosing 3-4%. 5 year performance (JHQAX) is much higher than any alternative funds I own - though the lifetime is shorter. I’ve recently researched funds using put / call options (which this fund claims to use) and have a positive take on them, generally, for defense in what appears a frothy market. Puts, in particular, protect. So far so good.
When I compare holdings on Lipper this fund comes up as mostly equities (98%) and appears heavily loaded with the FANG-types that have led the market higher (ie: Tesla, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon). I can’t see evidence of substantial use of derivatives / shorts. Best guess* is that it’s 90% or more long - but could be wrong. When I look at holdings for a couple alternatives I use (ABRZX, TMSRX) the numbers are “flakey” - showing very low equity levels and high cash or Treasury bond levels. Such (“mixed / skewed”) readings are more typical of “non-correlated” funds which seek to protect against prolonged equity declines thru extensive use of derivatives. (Funds leaning on put & call options often reveal 90% Treasury bond exposure.) One more I looked at is HSGFX - a bit of a turkey. However, Hussman’s 50/50 positioning of equities and bonds is telling (likely reflects substantial use of puts & calls). So … while appealing in a lot of ways, I’m not ready to buy this one as an “alternative” fund replacement yet. Still - I understand the appeal and will follow this one closely.
Worth looking at: https://markets.ft.com/data/funds/tearsheet/summary?s=JHQAX
* If you click the “Assets & Holdings“ tab at the top of the FT link above, it will show the fund 97+% long equity and 0% short.

Generally speaking, umbrella policies don't cover health care.

Umbrella insurance doesn’t cover your own injuries or property damage — you’ll need other types of coverage for that (such as health insurance or collision coverage on your auto insurance).

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/umbrella-insurance
That's not to say there's no such thing as umbrella health insurance, just that at best it's quite uncommon.
IMHO umbrella policies are excellent "investments" for liability protection. They're inexpensive largely because they're rarely needed. This is because they require you to carry a fair amount of underlying coverage. They're also reasonably priced because they're simple products. You're only paying for the added insurance, not for bells and whistles.
The good news regarding getting hit by a $1.5M medical bill either because the hospital used out of network providers ("surprise bills") or insisted that you pay what your insurance did not ("balance billing") is that there's a new federal rule prohibiting or severely restricting these practices. It goes into effect Jan 1. Some states already provide these protections.
[I know someone who got hit with a $500K balance bill in a state with protections. They wrote a note to the assisting(!) physician who presented this bill, filed a simple form with the state government, and never heard from the doctor again.]
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/07/01/hhs-announces-rule-to-protect-consumers-from-surprise-medical-bills.html

My wife and I own....a lot, for a long time. Over 10+years it compares very favorably to the VG large growth ETF (VOOG)but in the last 4yrs it HAS gotten slammed. At the same time is BEAT a mid-cap growth ETFs since LARGE has beaten the snot out of everything else. The COVID Bear seems to have been a turning point, getting left in the dust since late winter/Early spring 2020. MFO Premium has VOOG as a lower risk 4/5 compared to VG Capital Opp. Both are 5/5 overall. VOOG is 38% Tech,11% Healthcare so...no way Cap Opps can compete with that.

WSJ Report by Robert McMillan
"Cybersecurity officials at major tech companies are scrambling to patch a serious flaw in a widely used piece of internet software that security experts warn could unleash a new round of cyberattacks.
The bug, hidden in an obscure piece of server software called Log4j, has prompted investigations into the depth of the problem within Amazon.com Inc., AMZN -1.12% Twitter Inc. TWTR -1.94% and Cisco Systems Inc., CSCO 2.95% according to the companies.
Amazon, the world’s biggest cloud computing company, said in a security alert, “We are actively monitoring this issue, and are working on addressing it.”
The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency on Friday issued an alert about the vulnerability and urged companies to take action. CISA Director Jen Easterly on Saturday added, “To be clear, this vulnerability poses a severe risk. We will only minimize potential impacts through collaborative efforts between government and the private sector.”"
ARTICLE

Thanks, Yogi. I wasn't sure if that was still the case these days. So, if retirement funds are covered (401Ks/IRAs), that just leaves Taxable funds (savings or brokerage accounts), assuming I were to setup a Land Trust.
For RE, I would not receive much coverage from the low Homestead Act exemption in my State.
Unless there are better ideas?
If I went to 5 different lawyers with this, I wonder if I would get 5 different answers.

Disregarding state law protections, IRAs of every ilk including conduit IRAs have less protection than employer plans.
Employer plans are usually covered under an anti-alienation rule that prohibits them from turning moneys over to creditors or pretty much anyone else other than the owner. Period.
https://www.erieri.com/glossary/term/alienation-of-benefits
ERISA: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1056#d_1
Qualified (401(a)) plans: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/401#a_13
In contrast, the unlimited protection for employer plan assets rolled over into IRAs comes from the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). This only protects debtors during bankruptcy. (The name of the statute is the giveaway.)
A debtor's choice appears to be to declare personal bankruptcy or rely on state statutes to protect IRA assets from creditors.
The unlimited BAPCPA protection applies to assets coming from employer retirement plans. So long as a debtor can show that IRA assets originated in an employer plan, those identified assets have unlimited protection. Certainly segregating them into a separate rollover IRA makes this source identification ("tracing") task easier. But it is not necessary, and commingling is not a mistake. Keeping inadequate records is.
Having an IRA labeled "rollover" doesn't prove that all the assets in it came from rollovers. I've owned "rollover" IRAs with commingled assets. I also have impeccable records :-)

To make sure that an individual receives the full $1 million exemption [currently adjusted to $1,362,800] on owner-established traditional and Roth IRAs and the unlimited exemption on IRA rollovers from tax-qualified retirement plans, it is good practice to establish separate IRA rollover and contributory IRA accounts. This will make it easier to track the separate pools of assets.

https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2014/jan/naegele-jan2014.html