[Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
hushpuppy
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:33 pm

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by hushpuppy » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:03 pm

samsdad wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:14 pm
Back in the original HF-excellent-adventure thread, I posted this:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=272007&p=4407878&h ... g#p4407878

In that post I quote from a paper that can be found here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

Some quotes from that post (and the paper, all emphasis mine):
(samsdad) What is news to me is that apparently the warning about volatility decay (no matter the market conditions) that I've seen beaten to death in other threads, and to a lesser extent here; and the fundamental idea that holding these for more than a few days is dangerous is ostensibly not supported by data from the entire history of the Dow Jones Industrial Average starting in 1896 through 2010, and the S&P 500 data from 1958 through 2010. From the paper (my emphasis in bold):
The poor tracking performance of daily-rebalanced LETPs during the financial crisis of 2007–2009 has led the SEC, FINRA, the financial media, and investment advisors to warn investors that these daily-rebalanced LETPs are not suitable for long-term strategies. However, these comments are not conclusive for at least three reasons. First, because LETPs have a short history, the warnings are based on a small sample. Second, the financial crisis was a unique global event, and generalizations from it should be tempered. Third, a comprehensive framework to determine the effective multiple for LETPs with different rebalancing frequencies over various holding periods has yet to be provided.

To address these points, we test for additional perspectives on the deviations of LETP target returns and multiples from their naively expected counterparts by using more than a century’s history of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDU) over various investment horizons. We begin with the daily-rebalanced LETPs, which are designed to deliver a constant daily leverage. Contrary to public criticism, we find that, on average, LETP target returns, over various holding periods, perform largely in line with, and no worse than, their naive expected returns, defined as the product multiple times the cumulative returns of their underlying indices during the holding period. The holding periods include calendar months, calendar years, rolling two days, three days, and up to 2500 trading days.
Further into the paper:
These findings show that if an investor’s investment horizon is one calendar year, on average, the compounding effect is beneficial to the performance of a (2􏰁x) fund. . . . These findings show that the compounding effect is more likely to be positive than negative, and stands in contrast to the popular media assertion that LETPs are not suitable for long-term investors. . . . The rest of Panel B illustrates that this calendar-year positive compounding effect also applies to the (3x) . . . daily-rebalanced LETPs.
And:
Illustratively, for all periods – from two to 2500 trading days – Fig. 1 plots the average cumulative return deviation over the number of holding days by adding one trading day at a time. It shows that the average return deviation is positive for all five daily-rebalanced LETPs. In addition, as the number of holding days increases, the return deviation also increases. These findings confirm the conclusion from Table 1 that the daily-rebalanced LETP compounding effect, on average, can be beneficial to investor performance, which runs counter to media reports and public warnings.
The S&P 500 exhibits the same behavior as the DJIA:
Our results in Table 1 show that the compounding effect, on average, does not negatively impact the performance of the INDU LETFs. One might be concerned, however, that the INDU may not be representative of a broader U.S. stock market. To address this concern, we carry out the same analysis by using the publicly accessible history of the S&P 500 index (SPX). As shown in Table 6, for the holding period of a calendar year or longer, the compounding deviation registers a positive mean, confirming that the compounding deviation enhances LETF performances on average. In addition, the medians of the compounding deviation are also positive, confirming the higher odds of a performance enhancement than not. Overall, the results in Table 6 confirm our findings from Table 1, showing that the compounding effect enhances long-term LETF performances.
And, management fees don't fundamentally change the picture:
As shown in Table 7, the incorporation of the management fee has a small negative impact on the performance of LETPs. However, the fee-adjusted average annual returns of daily-rebalanced LETPs are still higher than their naïve expected counterparts. This confirms that the incorporation of management fees does not change the main conclusion of this paper.
In conclusion:
In summary, using the long-history real-world data on U.S. stock market indices, our research contributes to the academic literature with new insights into LETPs, well beyond the existing studies on daily-rebalanced LETPs that use short-history data or those based on standard normal simulations. Our theoretical framework and empirical findings reveal the determinants of the return deviation and multiple deviation of various LETPs across rebalancing frequencies and holding periods, and hold the promise of guiding regulators, policy makers, and investors in their understanding of the tracking performance of LETPs.
If anyone has any studies that contradict the findings of that paper, I'd be interested in viewing them.

Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with jh:
jh wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:46 pm
Its insulting to me when someone I don't even know wants to prevent me from having access to information. The assumption is that I am not smart enough or mature enough to have access to it. Its extremely arrogant for someone to decide on their own what strangers can/should be able to read about.
I honestly couldn't agree more.

As far as the aforementioned "ambulance chasers", let me state as a fellow lawyer that I don't think they are on solid ground here, not that I've seen the results of any litigation in this area. Even so, courts get it wrong all the time. I think the same thing about forcing employers to provide 401k plans that have to have index funds. Don't like your employer's 401k plan options? Too bad, find another job.

Let me illustrate the absurdity of the subject. We are all aware that any individual equity could go to zero practically overnight, if not literally so. Does that mean they shouldn't ever be held by individual investors? Should FINRA or some other nanny agency mandate that they come with a BIG WARNING label? Should we here at bogleheads be prevented from discussing them? Does every discussion that doesn't revolve around the three-fund portfolio need to be carefully monitored by ladygeek, et al., so that we don't tread into "danger"?

Individual liberty comes with a price. Mistakes: irreversible, economically-crushing, life-changing mistakes, are embodied in this concept. Contemplating the censorship (or special-disclaimer treatment) of any investing strategy or product is disgusting.

OP, if you want to shout from the rooftops your belief that leveraged ETFs are the greatest danger to the world since __________, in every thread that pops up, by all means do so. But the remedy isn't the removal of their discussion from this forum. To quote the US Supreme Court (who I think gets it wrong regularly), "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).

I'll reiterate my invitation to the procurement of studies, based on real-life data, that call into question the paper cited above. Feel free to peruse the original HF thread to see additional excerpts in my posts from said paper.
+1

This type of post is the main reason I bother to (infrequently now) view this forum, unless I am seeking purely factual knowledge - think tax treatment for a particular situation, as an example.

Many ideas are not welcome here, unless one is prepared to defend any thought which does not adhere to the "boglehead philosophy", which does not exist in any pure form. (People have different ideas about what fits within the "boglehead philosophy".)

For those who would dispute my characterization, one would only have to review poster willthrill threads/posts on trend following to see that even a well liked poster has to show admirable dexterity to escape the slings and arrows of those "pure bogleheads" that want to protect the boglehead forum from impure thoughts. Another example is almost any thread with "active management" in the title.

Thank you for this post, because in my opinion, it is important to disagree with the various ideas/forms of censorship, which are extremely common on this forum.

hushpuppy
Two dogs are better than one. One dog needs to have at least one companion that can consistently measure up to standards. Humans need not apply.

schooner
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:27 am

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by schooner » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:11 pm

Here is my proposed bet: The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX) will outperform your 3X leveraged risk parity strategy over the next 20 years.

Regarding censorship, I'm against it, even though I am 100% confident that you are wrong. And I think anyone reading these threads is intelligent enough to form their own opinion. Isn't that the purpose of a discussion board?

User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 5118
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by vineviz » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:14 pm

HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:40 pm
A theory that does not work in practice is a bad theory.
This isn't necessarily true.

When the outcome is largely determined by chance, even a good strategy can result in a bad outcome. In other words, it's dangerous to confuse luck with skill.

Imagine I offer someone the chance to, for a cost of just $1.00, place a bet on the flip of a verifiably fair coin such that I'll pay them $50 if the coin turns up heads and $0 if the coin turns up tails. Taking that bet is a good strategy regardless of the outcome.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch

alex_686
Posts: 4825
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 2:39 pm

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by alex_686 » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:17 pm

vineviz wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:14 pm
When the outcome is largely determined by chance, even a good strategy can result in a bad outcome. In other words, it's dangerous to confuse luck with skill.
To extend a bit, one of the key bits driving a leveraged strategy are the overall level of volatility and if returns are mean reverting or trend following. What might work well for one 20 year period may fall apart under a different secular period with different levels of volatility and mean reversion.

Theory can help you deconstruct luck with skill, and when certain strategies will work.

JBeck
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:54 am

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by JBeck » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:19 pm

HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:40 pm
Phineas J. Whoopee wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:52 pm
Expressing a negative view of an investment product to be used over a longer period than one day, while including references, is not censoring discussion.
PJW
The OP was expressly calling for the mods to clamp down.
In this thread viewtopic.php?f=10&t=288584&p=4710078&h ... x#p4710078 the OP provided no references to backup his untrue statements regarding a PIMCO fund that uses leverage (PSLDX). I'm glad a few people corrected him, but he's obviously trying to deplatform people with certain ideas he feels strongly against.

User avatar
305pelusa
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:20 pm

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by 305pelusa » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:25 pm

HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:40 pm
305pelusa wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:20 pm
KyleAAA wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:09 pm
305pelusa wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:10 am
HEDGEFUNDIE wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:28 am


Just out of curiosity, if my strategy did maintain 20%+ CAGRs for the next 20 years, would you call me vindicated or lucky?
I'd ask you the same as well: If it achieved terrible results, lagging that of a simple portfolio of index stock funds, would you say you were unlucky or would you agree it was a terrible idea?
The answer, of course, is neither. Just because a particular implementation of an idea is successful or not over a specific time period doesn't necessarily invalidate the idea itself. Maybe the leveraged ETFs turn out to be a poor vehicle for practical reasons, but another slightly different application of leverage is wildly successful. And I mostly see people advocating leverage in service of a form of risk parity approach, so they wouldn't JUST be holding 3x leverage ETFs and wouldn't expect to see 20% annual returns.
That's exactly my point. Saying someone is vindicated because they get absurdly good results is as unfair as saying they were totally wrong just because they get terrible results :sharebeer :sharebeer
A theory that does not work in practice is a bad theory.
When it comes to probability, it depends. Theoretically, the expected return of your strategy is X. But it's not necessarily going to occur; in fact, it is unlikely to occur. If you believe 20 years is enough for the law of large numbers to apply such that your results are representative of the theoretical expectation, then that's fine.

schooner
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:27 am

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by schooner » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:27 pm

alex_686 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:17 pm
vineviz wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:14 pm
When the outcome is largely determined by chance, even a good strategy can result in a bad outcome. In other words, it's dangerous to confuse luck with skill.
To extend a bit, one of the key bits driving a leveraged strategy are the overall level of volatility and if returns are mean reverting or trend following. What might work well for one 20 year period may fall apart under a different secular period with different levels of volatility and mean reversion.

Theory can help you deconstruct luck with skill, and when certain strategies will work.
I believe the chance of Hedgefundie's strategy working out over the next 20 years is about as likely as flipping 20 heads in a row.

When it comes to leveraged ETFs, we all need to remember the simple compound interest formula. Think about what would happen if someone really got 20+% returns year after year. There is really only one person in modern history who has done it through investing in other companies:

"From 1965 to 2017, Berkshire Hathaway's rising market value generated a 20.9 percent annual return compared to S&P 500′s 9.9 percent, resulting in a cumulative gain of 2,404,748 percent versus the market's 15,508 percent return."

rascott
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:53 am

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by rascott » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:32 pm

schooner wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:27 pm
alex_686 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:17 pm
vineviz wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:14 pm
When the outcome is largely determined by chance, even a good strategy can result in a bad outcome. In other words, it's dangerous to confuse luck with skill.
To extend a bit, one of the key bits driving a leveraged strategy are the overall level of volatility and if returns are mean reverting or trend following. What might work well for one 20 year period may fall apart under a different secular period with different levels of volatility and mean reversion.

Theory can help you deconstruct luck with skill, and when certain strategies will work.
I believe the chance of Hedgefundie's strategy working out over the next 20 years is about as likely as flipping 20 heads in a row.

When it comes to leveraged ETFs, we all need to remember the simple compound interest formula. Think about what would happen if someone really got 20+% returns year after year. There is really only one person in modern history who has done it through investing in other companies:

"From 1965 to 2017, Berkshire Hathaway's rising market value generated a 20.9 percent annual return compared to S&P 500′s 9.9 percent, resulting in a cumulative gain of 2,404,748 percent versus the market's 15,508 percent return."

What does "working out" mean? I don't expect the strategy to return 20+%.... or anything close to it. Over 20 years I do expect it could beat out 100% SP500, maybe by a couple points. Which would be in line with a higher risk strategy.

JBeck
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:54 am

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by JBeck » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:39 pm

rascott wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:32 pm
schooner wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:27 pm
alex_686 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:17 pm
vineviz wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:14 pm
When the outcome is largely determined by chance, even a good strategy can result in a bad outcome. In other words, it's dangerous to confuse luck with skill.
To extend a bit, one of the key bits driving a leveraged strategy are the overall level of volatility and if returns are mean reverting or trend following. What might work well for one 20 year period may fall apart under a different secular period with different levels of volatility and mean reversion.

Theory can help you deconstruct luck with skill, and when certain strategies will work.
I believe the chance of Hedgefundie's strategy working out over the next 20 years is about as likely as flipping 20 heads in a row.

When it comes to leveraged ETFs, we all need to remember the simple compound interest formula. Think about what would happen if someone really got 20+% returns year after year. There is really only one person in modern history who has done it through investing in other companies:

"From 1965 to 2017, Berkshire Hathaway's rising market value generated a 20.9 percent annual return compared to S&P 500′s 9.9 percent, resulting in a cumulative gain of 2,404,748 percent versus the market's 15,508 percent return."

What does "working out" mean? I don't expect the strategy to return 20+%.... or anything close to it. Over 20 years I do expect it could beat out 100% SP500, maybe by a couple points. Which would be in line with a higher risk strategy.
With all the analysis done I don't think it would be out of line to even say double digit returns over 20 years may even be *gasp* likely
Last edited by JBeck on Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

schooner
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:27 am

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by schooner » Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:40 pm

rascott wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:32 pm
schooner wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:27 pm
alex_686 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:17 pm
vineviz wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:14 pm
When the outcome is largely determined by chance, even a good strategy can result in a bad outcome. In other words, it's dangerous to confuse luck with skill.
To extend a bit, one of the key bits driving a leveraged strategy are the overall level of volatility and if returns are mean reverting or trend following. What might work well for one 20 year period may fall apart under a different secular period with different levels of volatility and mean reversion.

Theory can help you deconstruct luck with skill, and when certain strategies will work.
I believe the chance of Hedgefundie's strategy working out over the next 20 years is about as likely as flipping 20 heads in a row.

When it comes to leveraged ETFs, we all need to remember the simple compound interest formula. Think about what would happen if someone really got 20+% returns year after year. There is really only one person in modern history who has done it through investing in other companies:

"From 1965 to 2017, Berkshire Hathaway's rising market value generated a 20.9 percent annual return compared to S&P 500′s 9.9 percent, resulting in a cumulative gain of 2,404,748 percent versus the market's 15,508 percent return."

What does "working out" mean? I don't expect the strategy to return 20+%.... or anything close to it. Over 20 years I do expect it could beat out 100% SP500, maybe by a couple points. Which would be in line with a higher risk strategy.
That might be your opinion about beating the SP500 by a couple of points. But Hedgefundie claims he can turn $100k into $10 million in about 20 years. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=272007

I bet the the simple Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX) will outperform the 3X leveraged risk parity strategy over the next 20 years.

There's no grey area between those predictions.

MotoTrojan
Posts: 5863
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:39 pm

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by MotoTrojan » Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:06 pm

schooner wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:40 pm
rascott wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:32 pm
schooner wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:27 pm
alex_686 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:17 pm
vineviz wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:14 pm
When the outcome is largely determined by chance, even a good strategy can result in a bad outcome. In other words, it's dangerous to confuse luck with skill.
To extend a bit, one of the key bits driving a leveraged strategy are the overall level of volatility and if returns are mean reverting or trend following. What might work well for one 20 year period may fall apart under a different secular period with different levels of volatility and mean reversion.

Theory can help you deconstruct luck with skill, and when certain strategies will work.
I believe the chance of Hedgefundie's strategy working out over the next 20 years is about as likely as flipping 20 heads in a row.

When it comes to leveraged ETFs, we all need to remember the simple compound interest formula. Think about what would happen if someone really got 20+% returns year after year. There is really only one person in modern history who has done it through investing in other companies:

"From 1965 to 2017, Berkshire Hathaway's rising market value generated a 20.9 percent annual return compared to S&P 500′s 9.9 percent, resulting in a cumulative gain of 2,404,748 percent versus the market's 15,508 percent return."

What does "working out" mean? I don't expect the strategy to return 20+%.... or anything close to it. Over 20 years I do expect it could beat out 100% SP500, maybe by a couple points. Which would be in line with a higher risk strategy.
That might be your opinion about beating the SP500 by a couple of points. But Hedgefundie claims he can turn $100k into $10 million in about 20 years. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=272007

I bet the the simple Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX) will outperform the 3X leveraged risk parity strategy over the next 20 years.

There's no grey area between those predictions.
I bet you are right, and my 43/57 UPRO/EDV variant will beat them both :). Come find me in 20 years to check.

pepys
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:34 am

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by pepys » Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:40 pm

schooner wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:40 pm
rascott wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:32 pm
schooner wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:27 pm
alex_686 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:17 pm
vineviz wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:14 pm
When the outcome is largely determined by chance, even a good strategy can result in a bad outcome. In other words, it's dangerous to confuse luck with skill.
To extend a bit, one of the key bits driving a leveraged strategy are the overall level of volatility and if returns are mean reverting or trend following. What might work well for one 20 year period may fall apart under a different secular period with different levels of volatility and mean reversion.

Theory can help you deconstruct luck with skill, and when certain strategies will work.
I believe the chance of Hedgefundie's strategy working out over the next 20 years is about as likely as flipping 20 heads in a row.

When it comes to leveraged ETFs, we all need to remember the simple compound interest formula. Think about what would happen if someone really got 20+% returns year after year. There is really only one person in modern history who has done it through investing in other companies:

"From 1965 to 2017, Berkshire Hathaway's rising market value generated a 20.9 percent annual return compared to S&P 500′s 9.9 percent, resulting in a cumulative gain of 2,404,748 percent versus the market's 15,508 percent return."

What does "working out" mean? I don't expect the strategy to return 20+%.... or anything close to it. Over 20 years I do expect it could beat out 100% SP500, maybe by a couple points. Which would be in line with a higher risk strategy.
That might be your opinion about beating the SP500 by a couple of points. But Hedgefundie claims he can turn $100k into $10 million in about 20 years. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=272007

I bet the the simple Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX) will outperform the 3X leveraged risk parity strategy over the next 20 years.

There's no grey area between those predictions.
Hedgefundie does not claim that in the current version of the thread (I don't know about an earlier version). He said:
$10M. If past is prologue, I should be able to hit this number in 25-30 years. If interest rates (and therefore borrowing costs) stay low, the CAGR should be in the mid-20s, allowing me to reach $10M within 20 years.
So, it should reach $10 million in 20 years only if rates remain low. So not a direct claim and with a presupposition that very possibly won't be true.

schooner
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:27 am

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by schooner » Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:54 pm

pepys wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:40 pm
schooner wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:40 pm
rascott wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:32 pm
schooner wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:27 pm
alex_686 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:17 pm


To extend a bit, one of the key bits driving a leveraged strategy are the overall level of volatility and if returns are mean reverting or trend following. What might work well for one 20 year period may fall apart under a different secular period with different levels of volatility and mean reversion.

Theory can help you deconstruct luck with skill, and when certain strategies will work.
I believe the chance of Hedgefundie's strategy working out over the next 20 years is about as likely as flipping 20 heads in a row.

When it comes to leveraged ETFs, we all need to remember the simple compound interest formula. Think about what would happen if someone really got 20+% returns year after year. There is really only one person in modern history who has done it through investing in other companies:

"From 1965 to 2017, Berkshire Hathaway's rising market value generated a 20.9 percent annual return compared to S&P 500′s 9.9 percent, resulting in a cumulative gain of 2,404,748 percent versus the market's 15,508 percent return."

What does "working out" mean? I don't expect the strategy to return 20+%.... or anything close to it. Over 20 years I do expect it could beat out 100% SP500, maybe by a couple points. Which would be in line with a higher risk strategy.
That might be your opinion about beating the SP500 by a couple of points. But Hedgefundie claims he can turn $100k into $10 million in about 20 years. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=272007

I bet the the simple Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX) will outperform the 3X leveraged risk parity strategy over the next 20 years.

There's no grey area between those predictions.
Hedgefundie does not claim that in the current version of the thread (I don't know about an earlier version). He said:
$10M. If past is prologue, I should be able to hit this number in 25-30 years. If interest rates (and therefore borrowing costs) stay low, the CAGR should be in the mid-20s, allowing me to reach $10M within 20 years.
So, it should reach $10 million in 20 years only if rates remain low. So not a direct claim and with a presupposition that very possibly won't be true.
Fair. My bet is much lower - he won’t even beat a simple total stock market index fund (VTSAX) over the next 20 years.

TropikThunder
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:41 pm

Re: [Leveraged ETFs vs. Bogleheads Investment Philosophy]

Post by TropikThunder » Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:55 pm

schooner wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:11 pm
Regarding censorship, I'm against it, even though I am 100% confident that you are wrong. And I think anyone reading these threads is intelligent enough to form their own opinion. Isn't that the purpose of a discussion board?
I find that an odd statement from one who wanted to ban ETF’s because some people might day-trade them.

Post Reply