JEPQ ETF Review – JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF

JEPQ is a popular income ETF from J.P. Morgan that utilizes covered call options to pay monthly distributions. I review it here.

Disclosure:  Some of the links on this page are referral links. At no additional cost to you, if you choose to make a purchase or sign up for a service after clicking through those links, I may receive a small commission. This allows me to continue producing high-quality content on this site and pays for the occasional cup of coffee. I have first-hand experience with every product or service I recommend, and I recommend them because I genuinely believe they are useful, not because of the commission I may get. Read more here.

In a hurry? Here are the highlights:

1. JEPQ writes call options on the Nasdaq 100 via ELN's.
2. JEPQ launched in 2022, has since amassed about $34 billion in assets, and costs 0.35%.
3. The Nasdaq 100 is poorly diversified.
4. As we would expect, JEPQ has lagged both its underlying index and a well-diversified multi-asset portfolio on virtually all metrics and outcomes, including the generation of “income.”
5. Covered calls per se negatively impact expected returns, mean reversion of equities (recovery), and skewness. These negative attributes are exacerbated as the holding period increases. Plainly, covered calls are not good for long term investors, even those wanting “income.” These attributes are also exacerbated by trying to crank up the yield of the fund, and are not offset by the fund's “income.”
6. All these theoretical shortcomings show up empirically in live fund data (and even before necessarily greater taxes, trading costs, and fees).
7. Covered calls are expected to outperform exclusively during brief periods of truly sideways or mildly declining markets, which are inherently rare environments.
8. Covered call products exploit – and are attractive to amateurs as a result of – cognitive errors such as loss aversion and mental accounting bias and the naivete of unsophisticated, income-oriented investors.
9. Covered calls do not improve safe withdrawal rates and do not somehow allow for earlier retirement.
10. JEPQ's yield can vary.
11. Generally speaking, covered call fund yields are, at best, you guessed it, irrelevant.
12. Share count is also irrelevant, and selling shares in a down market shouldn't be feared, as we only care about the value of those shares and what they can buy us.
13. Woefully uninformed finfluencers push these high-yield, high-fee products on social media.
14. One does not need an “income” product to generate income. Ironically, using one is typically objectively inferior from both a risk perspective and a tax perspective.

Introduction – What Is JEPQ and How Does It Work?

JEPQ is the JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF. If you've read my review of JEPI, this post will feel very familiar. JEPQ is essentially the same strategy applied to a different benchmark, so naturally, this blog post will be very similar commentary (though I ended up going into much more detail here on the general topic of covered calls themselves to explain how JEPQ works and why its behavior is what it is). Whereas JEPI operates on the S&P 500, JEPQ is based on the Nasdaq-100 Index, which is the technology-heavy index of the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq exchange.

JEPQ launched in May 2022, and has since amassed over $34 billion in assets under management, making it one of the largest covered call ETFs on the market. This makes sense, as U.S. large cap tech has soared in recent years, drawing more people to the Nasdaq 100.

In a nutshell, JEPQ holds a basket of stocks drawn from the Nasdaq-100, selected using a proprietary “data science” process and ESG criteria, and then sells covered call options on that basket to generate income. The fund's stated objective is to provide monthly income and participate in some of the upside of the Nasdaq-100, with lower volatility than the index itself. It charges an expense ratio of 0.35%.

As a brief refresher, covered call writers own the underlying and collect a premium on the option, and the buyer of the call option has the right – but not the obligation – to buy the underlying at the strike price at or before expiration.

The call options JEPQ writes are slightly out-of-the-money (OTM), meaning the fund does leave a small amount of room to capture some upside before the cap kicks in. As of 2024, managers also now stagger the one-month calls into multiple weekly buckets, diversifying across expiration dates and strike prices. This is a slightly more nuanced implementation than the at-the-money approach used by somewhat simpler funds like QYLD.

We'd certainly call JEPQ a “covered call fund,” but It's worth briefly clarifying that JEPQ doesn't directly write call options explicitly. Instead, it utilizes Equity Linked Notes, or ELNs for short, which are structured instruments issued by a counterparty bank that have a covered call strategy embedded within them. The ultimate economic and mechanistic effects are functionally the same as straightforwardly writing covered calls, but I'd be remiss not to mention that the use of ELNs technically adds a layer of credit risk that a straightforward covered call fund wouldn't have.

The Nasdaq-100 is more volatile than the S&P 500 by a meaningful margin, which is a bit of an oxymoron considering buyers of covered call funds often reflexively claim they're aiming to lower volatility. But this actually works in JEPQ's favor in terms of higher underlying volatility commanding higher option premiums on covered calls, which, all else equal, translates to more income generated.

As a result, JEPQ's distribution yield tends to sit a littler higher than JEPI's, often in the 9-12% range. That eye-catching yield is a big, if not the biggest reason why this fund is so popular.

Next we'll more specifically break down the comparison to its older brother JEPI.

JEPQ vs. JEPI

JEPQ and JEPI share the same manager, the same basic strategy, and the same fee of 0.35%. The key differences come down to the underlying index and the resulting risk/return profile.

As mentioned previously, JEPI is built around the S&P 500, a broad index of 500 U.S. large cap stocks. JEPQ is built around the Nasdaq-100, which is a narrower, more concentrated index with a massive tilt toward large-cap growth stocks, particularly big tech names like Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Meta, and Alphabet. Such stocks have done extremely well in recent years, hence the flocking to Nasdaq-oriented funds like JEPQ and QQQ.

To briefly mention it again, the higher volatility of the Nasdaq 100 generates larger option premiums, which means more “income.” So all else equal, JEPQ should yield more than JEPI in most environments, and historically it has.

The obvious other side of that coin is that the Nasdaq-100 is far less diversified. You're essentially concentrating in U.S. large cap Growth, which has carried sky-high valuations and has faced real headwinds when factor investing tailwinds rotate elsewhere. Again, such concentration has proved fruitful in recent years, but that hasn't always been the case, and almost certainly won't always be the case in the unknowable future.

Both funds use ELNs rather than direct options writing, which means both carry the same added counterparty/credit risk. Neither fund's distributions are qualified dividends; they're taxed as ordinary income.

JEPI launched a couple years earlier in 2020 and has about $43 billion in assets.

Next we'll look at JEPQ versus its underlying index fund QQQ.

JEPQ vs. QQQ

Let's look at another salient comparison: how JEPQ performs against just owning the plain Nasdaq-100 Index via something like QQQ or QQQM.

Again, JEPQ basically holds the Nasdaq 100 and writes calls on it, so you can sort of think of it as QQQ already being inside JEPQ, and a little bit of the space is dedicated to the option writing via ELNs with covered call mechanics baked in. Though remember managers are actively using some selection characteristics to arrive at a subset of the Nasdaq 100, so it's not just holding the straight index, for better or worse. Still, the NDX itself is JEPQ's literal benchmark as stated in the fund's prospectus.

Since its inception in May 2022 through Q1 of 2026, there's no denying JEPQ has delivered pretty solid numbers in isolation; its total return including dividends has been around 14% annualized since inception. However, the plain Nasdaq-100 itself has dramatically outperformed that over the same period on CAGR alone.

Interestingly, they've had basically the same risk-adjusted return as measured by Sharpe and Sortino, but the underlying QQQ slightly edged out JEPQ on Calmar, the ratio of return to max drawdown, which is actually probably my favorite risk-adjusted return metric. But we'll also later go over why these risk-adjusted metrics don't even tell the full story here.

One bright stretch for JEPQ came in the fund's early days from its May 2022 inception through December 2022 – a period of sustained market decline when JEPQ outperformed the Nasdaq-100 by about 5.6 percentage points. That's exactly what you'd expect. When the market is declining modestly or moving sideways, the option premium collected provides a small cushion to stay afloat. When the market is ripping upward, the covered call cap hurts. And when the market drops steeply, the option premium doesn't provide much protection.

The fund's volatility since inception has been about 17%, compared to approximately 22% for the Nasdaq-100 Index itself. So you are indeed getting lower volatility, which is the stated goal. But as with JEPI and QYLD, the risk-adjusted returns still don't look particularly compelling once you account for the capped upside. There's a reason seasoned investors note that covered calls provide income by forgoing the upside of the underlying index – it's just the mechanical reality of how covered calls work, which uninformed buyers may miss.

Fischer Black – who literally co-wrote the pricing model for such option contracts – directly addressed this loss of upside in a 1975 paper titled “Fact and Fantasy in the Use of Options,” noting that traders often myopically focus on premium income while ignoring the loss of upside appreciation when the option is exercised. He concluded that an investor who writes call options against existing stock holdings will often end up in a worse position than they started in.

I'd also point out the elephant in the room: the Nasdaq-100 is objectively a poorly diversified index. It's predominantly large-cap growth, it excludes Financials entirely, and it's heavily concentrated in a handful of mega-cap tech companies. I've noted before in the context of QYLD that concentrating in the Nasdaq-100 because of recent performance is largely a recency bias play. Large-cap growth has looked expensive relative to historical norms for years now.

JEPQ inherits all of that concentration risk and then layers on the additional complexity and upside limitations of the covered call strategy on top of it.

Is JEPQ a Good Investment?

So is JEPQ a good investment? Probably not.

If you didn't pick up on it already, covered calls are just plainly not an efficient or effective way to de-risk a portfolio or provide sustained “income.”

That's not an issue with the fund's implementation. The covered call strategy embedded in JEPQ does exactly what it claims it will do. It reduces volatility relative to the benchmark, generates monthly income in the form of call option premiums, and provides a small cushion in flat or mild downward markets. (As an aside, hopefully it doesn't require explaining that we can't accurately and consistently predict such market behavior ahead of time, so the odds are already inherently stacked against the covered call investor.)

As I hinted at earlier, the issue is simply the inescapable mechanics of covered calls themselves. They're capping upside but leaving nearly the same downside risk as the underlying equities index, introducing an appreciably asymmetric returns distribution.

This alone should make your spidey sense tingle and is a red flag for anyone versed on such trades. We'll go over this in detail shortly.

Covered Calls Hinder Mean Reversion

Further, recall that increasingly greater gains are required to recover from increasingly greater losses:

Imagine owning a covered call product in a scenario like the March 2020 flash crash, when the stock market dropped suddenly and steeply. You drop with the market but not quite as much thanks to your nifty option premium and lower beta, but then you don't get to fully participate in the massive – and necessary – recovery.

We can actually see precisely that scenario looking at XYLD, an S&P 500 covered call product from Global X, versus VOO for the plain underlying S&P 500 Index:

Basically, to word this in a different way that hopefully drives the point home, in explosive bull markets, which the Nasdaq-100 is historically prone to, JEPQ lags the NDX badly, and in flat or moderately declining markets, JEPQ fares only slightly better than the NDX. That is not a prediction, but simply a mathematical certainty necessitated by the call option trade itself.

Of course, we can confirm that theoretical underpinning by simply glancing at some backtests, even over short periods, in which the covered call fund in question almost always lags its underlying even on a risk-adjusted basis, much less a more broadly diversified portfolio across multiple assets, which we'll look at later below.

JEPQ vs. Bonds – Marketing Malarky

J.P. Morgan markets JEPQ as generating income without duration risk or credit risk of fixed income, but this is a silly marketing gimmick, as in this context we'd be using bonds as a bona fide diversifier to mitigate stock drawdowns, for which they tend to do a much better job than call options. Even if you hate bonds, T-bills still typically yield superior results. I showed as much in my post on QYLD. You'll usually come out ahead – for any covered call fund – by just holding the underlying plus cash.

Sadly, JPM's gimmicky framing has resonated with people in recent years when bonds haven't done so well, but people are often mistakenly looking at bonds in isolation rather than in the context of a diversified portfolio alongside stocks. Two different things. In any case, equity call option premiums are certainly not a replacement for bonds. We're still talking equity risk here.

JEPQ Yield, Fees, and Taxes

The irony is naive buyers often solely focus on that juicy yield and ignore the rest, not realizing they could likely achieve demonstrably superior outcomes – less risk, more stability, and more “income” – using simpler, cheaper products. Don't forget JEPQ costs 0.35%, over double its underlying QQQM at 0.15%.

I say it all the time: as usual, total return and the risk you're taking to get it are all that matters at the end of the day, even for the so-called “income” investor.

Novice buyers of these complex, high-fee, high-yield funds will focus on and celebrate that large distribution yield while ignoring the overall behavior of the investment and how it relates to their overall portfolio, not to mention not understanding covered call mechanics and the demonstrable suboptimality thereof. It's quintessential mental accounting bias. It's like paying $100 for a lottery ticket and being excited that you won $10. It's picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. Covered call funds appeal to such cognitive errors.

Ironically, the yield of these products is inversely related to their expected returns, due necessarily to the underlying covered call trade itself, which gives up increasingly more upside of the underlying as the strike price is lowered to extract more option premium. Israelov and Nze famously demonstrated this inverse relationship in their 2024 paper “A Devil's Bargain: When Generating Income Undermines Investment Returns.”

For a young accumulator who is simply reinvesting the distributions, JEPQ makes even less sense. The math is straightforward. If you don't need that monthly income to pay your bills, you're just getting taxed on hefty distributions and then reinvesting the after-tax amount, creating a not-so-insignificant drag, all while capping the upside of the investment. That investor would inarguably be better off in a plain-vanilla Nasdaq-100 fund (or probably better, a broader total market index fund).

JEPQ's distributions are taxed as ordinary income, not like qualified dividends. A nominal 10% yield in a 32% tax bracket becomes roughly 6.8% after taxes.

JEPQ Does Not Provide Downside Protection

The income investor who actually needs that regular cash flow every month — say, a retiree who is spending down the portfolio and wants predictable monthly distributions — definitely has a more legitimate case for a fund like this, but even she can almost certainly do better. Remember the small option premium is doing basically nothing to save you in a market crash, which retirees should be more concerned about, as withdrawals aren't being replenished.

Notice how diversifying across multiple assets tends to produce demonstrably superior outcomes across the board, and this is even only looking at merely 4 years since JEPQ launched!

Allow me to expand on that risk characteristic in more detail, since it warrants explaining. Simply put, despite erroneous claims from dividend bros shilling products like this on social media, covered calls do not protect the downside. Period.

I see this bogus claim about JEPQ, JEPI, QQQI, QYLD, GPIQ, etc. everywhere, and it's simply not true in any meaningful sense. Proponents see lower volatility and a slightly smaller drawdown than the underlying and exclaim “Look! It has dOwNsIdE pRoTeCtIoN!”

But it only lowers such risk measurements only slightly, by precisely the amount of the option premium received. And there's the rub. Remember I said JEPQ basically holds the NDX and then dedicates some space to the covered calls. That's why JEPQ will always drop the same amount as the underlying minus precisely the amount of the call option premium. If you want less beta, sell some beta (and hold cash).

Put another way, the option premium received provides only a small cushion. It does not provide any semblance of robust resiliency. It does not prevent JEPQ from falling sharply when the Nasdaq-100 crashes. We just saw as much:

Anyone holding JEPQ for “downside protection” has misunderstood the product. If downside protection is the goal, as again it may very well be for the risk-averse investor or retiree, we'd look elsewhere to structurally uncorrelated assets like bonds and gold, or even OTM puts with something like CAOS, to hold alongside a core of stocks.

Exploitation of Biases and Novices' Naivete

Fund marketing literature exploits loss aversion, the tendency of humans to be more sensitive to losses than to gains of an equal amount. Promoters do so by boasting about Sharpe ratios and drawdown mitigation. They exploit mental accounting bias by highlighting that high “income,” getting investors to conveniently ignore share price behavior. As you now hopefully understand, none of these claims really hold water under minimal scrutiny, and that “income” is basically an illusion.

Harris, Hartzmark, and Solomon explicitly mentioned this practice in their 2015 paper “Juicing the Dividend Yield: Mutual Funds and the Demand for Dividends,” noting that fund providers will deliberately “juice” the yield to specifically target unsophisticated, income-oriented investors, and that higher yields correlated to worse total returns and greater tax costs.

In a 2022 paper titled “Individual Differences in Susceptibility to Financial Bullshit,” Kienzler, Västfjäll, and Tinghög similarly noted this uncomfortable implication for products like JEPQ: the investors most drawn to high-yield, jargon-heavy financial marketing are precisely the ones least equipped to critically evaluate what they're buying, and end up with worse financial outcomes on average.

In summary, to paraphrase the legendary Ben Felix, an expert on this topic, “covered call products are neither high-income nor high-Sharpe, and the idea that covered calls generate income is financial bullshit.”

Skewness, Sharpe, and Shortcomings

Seasoned investors may also recognize that up to this point, we've also generously ignored the fact that Sharpe and Sortino don't even account for covered calls' negative impact on skewness and kurtosis, which are higher moments of the return distribution. (Though funnily enough, Sharpe and Sortino are often still lower for the covered call product, as you've seen.)

Basically, when options enter the picture, our beloved Normal distribution aka “bell curve,” on which many fundamental mean-variance optimization assumptions rely, goes out the window. So fundamentally, viewing covered calls through an MVO lens at all is already technically incorrect, or at least imprecise, and unfairly favors covered calls.

Such effects on skewness were noted as far back as 1981 by Bookstaber and Clarke in a paper titled “Options Can Alter Portfolio Return Distributions.”

Four smart economists also recognized this in 2007 and demonstrated that most popular performance measures can be “gamed” by strategies that exploit skewness and tail risk, explicitly citing covered call writing as a textbook example, so they proposed a metric specifically designed to be immune to this manipulation, calling it the Manipulation-Proof Performance Measure, or MPPM. The details of the MPPM calculation are beyond the scope of this post, but as you might imagine, it basically penalizes negative skewness (“asymmetry” from earlier) and excess kurtosis (tailedness).

So how does JEPQ score on MPPM, you might ask? While admittedly a small sample, using annual total return data from 2023 through 2025 and a standard risk aversion coefficient of 3 (as used in the original paper), the MPPM comes out to roughly 17% annualized for JEPQ and roughly 23% annualized for QQQ, which is a pretty large gap:

Brooks and Chance similarly noted in their 2019 paper “The ‘Superior Performance' of Covered Calls on the S&P 500: Rethinking an Anomaly” that previously anomalous alpha sometimes seen with covered call strategies vanishes entirely after controlling for negative skewness, citing that such alpha is merely an “illusion.”

Longer Isn't Better

Over some extremely short period of sideways market movement, which is itself a rare occurrence, covered calls may warrant some small inclusion in the portfolio, because again that's the only time they shine. The issue is that over any reasonably long period, the aforementioned asymmetry of returns compounds. Increasingly more upside is capped, and increasingly more downside is left exposed. And we've already seen this in just a few years since JEPQ's launch!

Remember we're usually investing in the market at all because we expect it to go up more than it goes down. The covered call fund like JEPQ still relies on this assumption, but intrinsically mutes its effect to the detriment of the investor. Any advantage the covered call fund has during a flat or mild bear market is necessarily short-lived if we assume markets go up over the long term.

Extending the logic on the asymmetry property, hopefully it is intuitive at this point that the disparity is likely to get worse the longer the covered call fund is held. That is, the gap between the covered call fund and its underlying equities index is expected to widen as more time passes. Like I just noted, we've seen that already in just a few short years' time with JEPQ, but here's PBP, one of the oldest covered call ETFs, versus its underlying S&P 500 since 2007 to illustrate this point further:

Modeling Withdrawals

I know what you may be thinking at this point: We care about getting sustainable monthly income to cover expenses, not just which strategy had the highest return over the long term, idiot!

Recognize – and I'll show you this in a sec – that, in this context, those are actually sort of the same goal. That's why I focused so heavily on volatility, drawdown, and subsequent risk-adjusted performance earlier. Those are different measurements of things that directly affect the sustainability of the portfolio. For many, that leap should be intuitive, but I'll admit I often gloss over it in discussions with income investors about these products.

So let's model it out using the same example above to illustrate. Here's that same time period for PBP, a covered call fund based on the S&P 500, and VFINX, an S&P 500 mutual fund, with a $1M starting balance and $5,000 withdrawn monthly as “income.” Just for comparison, I've also included the idea I mentioned earlier – simply holding the underlying and some cash, in this case a 60/40 allocation.

The result is what we'd expect given everything we've discussed so far – Both the underlying and 60/40 resulted in higher annualized return, lower volatility, lower risk, and consequently more money left at the end. That is, they allowed the investor to withdraw more income for longer. Specifically, 15-year safe withdrawal rates for the 3 portfolios were 6.67%, 8.16%, and 7.79% respectively:

Appreciate that it matters not whether the monthly withdrawals came from options, dividends, or share price appreciation. Once again, total return and risk are the only things that matter at the end of the day. Total return is what pays your bills.

A corollary to that, which also hopefully shouldn't require explaining but somehow often seems to when this kind of topic is raised, is that avoiding selling shares has no tangible benefit, and number of shares objectively doesn't matter. We only care about the value of those shares, as, once again, that's what pays the bills. 1 share worth $100 is effectively the same thing as 100 shares at $1 each.

Moreover, also pause and appreciate that PBP has a stated distribution yield of 11%, yet its historical total return was only 5% annualized. Simply put, yield is not return.

So now when you see someone on social media claiming a covered call “income” fund will allow you to retire earlier and “keep all your shares,” or cavalierly comparing the distribution yield to a retirement withdrawal rate, you can call them out on the sheer nonsense of all of those ideas. Covered calls do not somehow magically dismiss the math behind sequence risk and safe withdrawal rates.

One last thing worth noting that people also seem to forget is that JEPQ's distribution yield is not fixed. It fluctuates with market volatility, since higher volatility environments produce richer option premiums. In calm, steadily climbing markets, premiums compress and yields decline. If you're counting on JEPQ's current yield as a planning assumption going forward, you may be in for a surprise in a low-volatility bull market (and markets usually go up during periods of low volatility). You're also likely in for a surprise with the tax bill if you're only used to qualified dividends.

Income Does Not Necessitate “Income”

If you couldn't tell by now, I'm not a covered call fund investor and I'm not a dividend investor generally. I'd rather own a broadly diversified basket of low-cost index funds and simply sell shares as needed for income (and I happen to think most other people should, too).

I understand the psychological appeal of a regular cash deposit hitting your account every month, but mathematically, it's effectively the same and is usually inferior due to all the aforementioned reasons. I can set up the brokerage to sell shares for me automatically and create my own “dividend” when and how I want, and I do.

In short, I don't let mental accounting or corporate dividend policy dictate my investing strategy or personal spending policy. You may feel differently.

In an admitted attempt purely to appeal to the sensibility of the dividend bros on Reddit and Twitter, a generous compromise to scratch the itch here would be to maybe include JEPQ as a small percentage of the portfolio but not the whole thing, basically making it an “income sleeve” of sorts. Portfolios don't have to be all-or-nothing. This would be adding an option writing overlay to an otherwise traditional portfolio. That is, for a hypothetical example, you could hold the NDX via QQQM, some T-bills, some gold, and a dash of JEPQ, and have a well-diversified setup.

That said, I'd emphatically encourage anyone to get away from this fanciful idea that you must own a high-yield product with “income” in the name if you need income, or even more generally, get away from the idea that you must get your “income” from dividends or distributions. This irrational mental accounting bias would be comical at this point if it weren't so concerningly pervasive, particularly among novices. It is tremendously troubling to me that these terrible products are vehemently pushed on unsuspecting novices in arenas like YouTube and Twitter, using the allure of so-called “passive income,” often by equally uninformed grifters who are creating the content and simply highlighting juicy yields to make bogus claims.

Also, stop jumping to the next shiny covered call object that launches. First it was QYLD. Then it was JEPQ. Now it's ostensibly QQQI and GPIQ (so I'm sure I'll have to do future posts specifically dismantling those too). Despite severely uninformed finfluencers – who are often paid to push these products – claiming otherwise, NEOS and YieldMax can't change option math.

In short, as you hopefully now understand, the implementation of any particular covered call fund is not the issue; it's the fundamental mechanics of writing call options per se. If it is a covered call fund in any form, by definition it is not the holy grail you think you've found that will suddenly be the one to beat its underlying over the long term and somehow magically remediate all the problems I discussed earlier. The hilarious irony is that the only way to fix those is to remove the covered call feature entirely.

Recap and Conclusion

That was a lot. Let's recap:

1. JEPQ writes call options on the Nasdaq 100 via ELN's.
2. JEPQ launched in 2022, has since amassed about $34 billion in assets, and costs 0.35%.
3. The Nasdaq 100 is poorly diversified.
4. As we would expect, JEPQ has lagged both its underlying index and a well-diversified multi-asset portfolio on virtually all metrics and outcomes, including the generation of “income.”
5. Covered calls per se negatively impact expected returns, mean reversion of equities (recovery), and skewness. These negative attributes are exacerbated as the holding period increases. Plainly, covered calls are not good for long term investors, even those wanting “income.” These attributes are also exacerbated by trying to crank up the yield of the fund, and are not offset by the fund's “income.”
6. All these theoretical shortcomings show up empirically in live fund data (and even before necessarily greater taxes, trading costs, and fees).
7. Covered calls are expected to outperform exclusively during brief periods of truly sideways or mildly declining markets, which are inherently rare environments.
8. Covered call products exploit – and are attractive to amateurs as a result of – cognitive errors such as loss aversion and mental accounting bias and the naivete of unsophisticated, income-oriented investors.
9. Covered calls do not improve safe withdrawal rates and do not somehow allow for earlier retirement.
10. JEPQ's yield can vary.
11. Generally speaking, covered call fund yields are, at best, you guessed it, irrelevant.
12. Share count is also irrelevant, and selling shares in a down market shouldn't be feared, as we only care about the value of those shares and what they can buy us.
13. Woefully uninformed finfluencers push these high-yield, high-fee products on social media.
14. One does not need an “income” product to generate income. Ironically, using one is typically objectively inferior from both a risk perspective and a tax perspective.

If for some reason you still want JEPQ after all that, it should be available at any major broker, including M1 Finance, which is the one I tend to suggest around here.

What do you think of JEPQ? Do you own it? Let me know in the comments.

JEPQ FAQ's

Lastly, here are some frequently asked questions about JEPQ and their answers.

References

Black, F. (1975). Fact and fantasy in the use of options. Financial Analysts Journal, 31(4), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v31.n4.36

Bookstaber, R., & Clarke, R. (1981). Options can alter portfolio return distributions. Journal of Portfolio Management, 7(3), 63–70. https://www.pm-research.com/content/iijpormgmt/7/3/63

Brooks, R., Chance, D. M., & Hemler, M. L. (2019). The “superior performance” of covered calls on the S&P 500: Rethinking an anomaly. The Journal of Derivatives, 27(2), 50–69. https://www.pm-research.com/content/iijderiv/27/2/50

Calluzzo, P., Moneta, F., & Topaloglu, S. (2021). Complex instruments have increased risk and reduced performance at mutual funds. Critical Finance Review, 14(1). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2938146

Goetzmann, W. N., Ingersoll, J. E., Spiegel, M. I., & Welch, I. (2007). Portfolio performance manipulation and manipulation-proof performance measures. The Review of Financial Studies, 20(5), 1503–1546. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhm025

Harris, L. E., Hartzmark, S. M., & Solomon, D. H. (2015). Juicing the dividend yield: Mutual funds and the demand for dividends. Journal of Financial Economics, 116(3), 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2015.04.001

Harvey, C. R., & Siddique, A. (2000). Conditional skewness in asset pricing tests. The Journal of Finance, 55(3), 1263–1295. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00247

Israelov, R., & Nze Ndong, D. (2024). A devil's bargain: When generating income undermines investment returns. The Journal of Alternative Investments. https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2024.1.211

J.P. Morgan Asset Management. (2025, December 31). JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF — Fund Story. https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/americas/us/en/literature/fund-story/STO-JEPQ.pdf

Kienzler, M., Västfjäll, D., & Tinghög, G. (2022). Individual differences in susceptibility to financial bullshit. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 34, 100655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2022.100655

Leland, H. E. (1999). Beyond mean–variance: Performance measurement in a nonsymmetrical world. Financial Analysts Journal, 55(1), 27–36. https://www.pm-research.com/content/iijpormgmt/25/5/109

Maillard, D. (2013). Manipulation-proof performance measure and the cost of tail risk. SSRN Working Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2276050

Merton, R. C., Scholes, M. S., & Gladstein, M. L. (1978). The returns and risk of alternative call option portfolio investment strategies. The Journal of Business, 51(2), 183–242. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3665864

Tran, L. A. (2025, October 9). JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF analyst report. Morningstar. https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/xnas/jepq/quote

Whaley, R. E. (2002). Return and risk of CBOE buy write monthly index. The Journal of Derivatives, 10(2), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.3905/jod.2002.319194

Are you nearing or in retirement? Use my link here to get a free holistic financial plan and to take advantage of 25% exclusive savings on financial planning and wealth management services from fiduciary advisors at Retirable to manage your savings, spend smarter, and navigate key decisions.

Disclaimer:  While I love diving into investing-related data and playing around with backtests, this is not financial advice, investing advice, or tax advice. The information on this website is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. Investment products discussed (ETFs, mutual funds, etc.) are for illustrative purposes only. It is not a research report. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or otherwise transact in any of the products mentioned. I always attempt to ensure the accuracy of information presented but that accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Do your own due diligence. I mention M1 Finance a lot around here. M1 does not provide investment advice, and this is not an offer or solicitation of an offer, or advice to buy or sell any security, and you are encouraged to consult your personal investment, legal, and tax advisors. Hypothetical examples used, such as historical backtests, do not reflect any specific investments, are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be considered an offer to buy or sell any products. All investing involves risk, including the risk of losing the money you invest. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of other parties mentioned. Read my lengthier disclaimer here.