@Kirk: The real winners will be those, who combine both correlated risks of secular growth as well as non- to anti-correlated risks of secular change and disruption. The first risks are easy to take through passive indexing. However, micro-efficient markets render popular active search for presumably more attractive growth risks beyond pure indexing useless.

Thus, it is much more rewarding to find and take good alternative risks, particularly in the spaces of active long volatility and trend. This is because they exploit macro-inefficiencies of mostly under-priced tail risks, which are robustly available in all markets.

@Johnathan: As Nicolas and Chris mentioned, the Eurekahedge Long Volatility index is a good starting point for solutions. As long volatility suffered during the past 8 years, those funds, which managed to just break even over at least 5 hard years after costs of carry and fees, may have proven their competitive performance sufficiently already to be eligible for allocation.

This is because all of them performed equally well during volatile crises, no matter what strategies they applied. However, during the long low volatility phases before the Covid-19 crisis, low performance dispersion occurred only with those few competitive long volatility funds, which succeeded to break even.

I conclude from this homogeneous behaviour of the industry leaders that active long volatility may provide an at least equally robust and profitable systematic risk premium as active trend. This is certainly due to the strongly negative correlation between equity volatility changes and returns.

Thus, I think it is the right time for prudent investors to start with tentative allocations. At least for those, who successfully allocated active trend already. Both allocations are mainly for securing their beneficial risk mitigation properties for rough times to come as well as their good chances to generate attractive long-term returns, at least better than non-yielding long-term bonds.

As with all active approaches, careful due diligence, based on thorough understanding, is mandatory but worthit. Would be interesting how you see this.