Safest way to make 1% per month

[Sig]

Not to beat an already dead horse, but you seem to enjoy it, so here goes.

1) The primary reason you're misguided is that you believe the multiple is bad, where I believe it enhances what is working. I very much trade on margin when it works and know how the 3x products work since I've traded them for years with better than average returns. Look at SVXY , that should explain to all the downside of 3x

2) Your Nasdaq bubble argument is not valid because you believe it's the same product today as in 2000. Spend some time and read through the list of companies from 2000 that were part of the Q's here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble#Companies

Then take a look at the current line up here
https://www.slickcharts.com/nasdaq100

They share the same index name only, but are hardly the same product. You're turn.

Again, it's baffling why someone who didn't understand the a fundamental aspect of how the TQQQ security works thinks they're in any position to "educate" us on the fact that the Nasdaq 100 isn't composed of the same companies in 2021 as in 2001. No shit sherlock!

It's frankly quite depressing to see low side Dunning Kruger in action like this.

 

[userque]

Once again, TQQQ returns 3X the daily percentage return of QQQ. That's a very different thing than returning 3X QQQ. Here's a little demonstration, assume we start out with QQQ at 100 and we have the following changes over 3 trading days.

QQQ % Change in QQQ % change in TQQQ TQQQ
100 0 100
90 -10% -30% 70
99 +10% +30% 91

In just 3 trading days you have QQQ down 1% from the start and TQQQ down 9% from the start instead of the 3% one may naively expect if they thought that TQQQ actually returned 3X QQQ over time. The return of a 3X fund over time is highly dependent on the path of the underlying and will almost never return 3X the underlying over time. Sometimes it return 4X, other times 1X, in fact in some cases the underlying might be down over a period of months and the 3X fund is up or vice versa. It all comes back to the fundamental design of the 3X ETFs (and 2X and most inverse ETFs).

I understand how the daily return works. Let me try to simplify what I'm saying:

Do you see how TQQQ increases at a rate greater than what QQQ does?

Now, do you see how, in your chart, TQQQ increases at a rate lesser than what QQQ does?

Yet, your chart properly shows the decline of TQQQ is greater than that of QQQ

Again, how do you explain that?

 

[Sig]

I understand how the daily return works. Let me try to simplify what I'm saying:

Do you see how TQQQ increases at a rate greater than what QQQ does?

View attachment 267598

Now, do you see how, in your chart, TQQQ increases at a rate lesser than what QQQ does?

View attachment 267599

Yet, your chart properly shows the decline of TQQQ is greater than that of QQQ

View attachment 267600

Again, how do you explain that?

Here's an example from Yahoo charts you can look at yourself. As you can see if you bought TQQQ on Feb 19, 2020 then on July 1st, 2020 you'd be down 11% even though QQQ was up 7.4%. It not only didn't return 3X but actually returned -1.5X!

If you're still saying that something is wrong because over a period greater than a day TQQQ doesn't reflect 3X QQQ or doesn't reflect QQQ in general, or doesn't move at the same ratio as QQQ at different times, than you don't understand daily percentage returns, sorry. Those are all fundamentally expected behaviors due to the path dependency of anything based on daily percentage return. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be that 3X funds DO NOT, IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, return 3X the underlying index over any period greater than a day and can in fact at many points not only return something other than 3X but actually return a negative X of the underlying, the the exact opposite of what one might expect, as I demonstrated above. It would seriously only take you about 10 minutes to replicate what I did with 3X the daily percentage return of QQQ starting in 2000 in Excel. I sincerely think its worth the investment in time, as it all becomes clear when you actually work through how the instrument works. And BTW, I'm not the only one to have done this analysis, you can do a quick google and see it replicated by lots of folks. The question isn't if what I posted is correct, it's not original thought on my part. The only question is why it's correct, and if you take the time to replicate it I think that answer will come far better than I could explain it.

 

[userque]

Here's an example from Yahoo charts you can look at yourself. As you can see if you bought TQQQ on Feb 19, 2020 then on July 1st, 2020 you'd be down 11% even though QQQ was up 7.4%. It not only didn't return 3X but actually returned -1.5X!

If you look at this chart you just posted, you'll see that TQQQ properly declines faster than QQQ; then properly increases faster than QQQ

When I said I would simply what I was saying. I did. I purposely didn't mention 3x, or any percentages. I said, 'greater' and 'lesser.'

Again, this chart you posted shows TQQQ behaving as it should.
The tradingview chart I posted correctly shows TQQQ behaving as it should.
Your homemade chart doesn't show TQQQ behaving as it should.

If you're still saying that something is wrong because over a period greater than a day TQQQ doesn't reflect 3X QQQ or doesn't reflect QQQ in general, or doesn't move at the same ratio as QQQ at different times, than you don't understand daily percentage returns, sorry.

Again, I left 3x out of it. TQQQ should increase faster than QQQ; and decrease faster than QQQ.

On your chart it doesn't.

And instead of you being curious, and recognizing that something is a miss. You've somehow ignored those facts within your chart, and have called everyone that disagrees with you, a dummy.

You obviously have an error within your spreadsheet. When you eventually are able to admit that, it should be easy to spot. Well ... for most people, at least.

 

[Sig]

If you look at this chart you just posted, you'll see that TQQQ properly declines faster than QQQ; then properly increases faster than QQQ

When I said I would simply what I was saying. I did. I purposely didn't mention 3x, or any percentages. I said, 'greater' and 'lesser.'

Again, this chart you posted shows TQQQ behaving as it should.
The tradingview chart I posted correctly shows TQQQ behaving as it should.
Your homemade chart doesn't show TQQQ behaving as it should.



Again, I left 3x out of it. TQQQ should increase faster than QQQ; and decrease faster than QQQ.

On your chart it doesn't.

And instead of you being curious, and recognizing that something is a miss. You've somehow ignored those facts within your chart, and have called everyone that disagrees with you, a dummy.

You obviously have an error within your spreadsheet. When you eventually are able to admit that, it should be easy to spot. Well ... for most people, at least.

So I tried to explain it intuitively and I provided a concrete example of TQQQ doing the opposite of QQQ over a given time period, something you're continuing to insist is impossible or at least "improper" so I'm not sure how else to explain it. If you took the Yahoo chart I showed and compressed it to the starting day and the ending day, you'd say Yahoo obviously made an error because while QQQ was going up TQQQ not only failed to "properly" go up faster it actually went down! And yes, my chart is compressing down to several weeks of return per point, and yes, when you look at snapshots several weeks apart it's not at all implausible for 3X the daily return to go down several periods in a row when QQQ goes up or at the very least not "properly" follow QQQ.


Again, this isn't unique analysis. If you do a Google you'll see the same thing from everyone who has taken the effort to build a simple excel spreadsheet to run the analysis. It's interesting that you're unwilling to make even a modicum of effort to do that while lobbing grenades at those who did. Are all of us curiously wrong in the same way? I would absolutely love to have you replicate this and show me that I had an error, in fact I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was an error somewhere if I had been the only one to do this analysis. But you haven't done that, you just keep saying that because 3X QQQ doesn't generally follow QQQ during a given time period it must be wrong. All of us who have done this must be wrong, but you who have not must be right simply because it's "proper"?

 

[newwurldmn]

1) He's a Trumper so there is that cognitive-ceiling.

2) I saw the Greenwich/Madoff prospectus in the summer of 2004. The moment I read "split-strike conversion" I knew he meant synthetic bull verts. The fact that someone was running money without understanding the payoff was surreal, but I didn't look deeply into his history. Now, I didn't cry fraud bc we had just witnessed the internet bubble and were early in the housing crisis. ofc he was exposed before reporting 2008 numbers, but I would have been calling the SEC had I looked into his prior performance.

It was believed that madoff had the magic touch in his stock selection. He was buying a basket of stocks he thought would perform and then buying the collars. I interviewed with a very seasoned prop guy (from around your and taowaves time) who thought very highly of madoff in 2007.

 

[userque]

So I tried to explain it intuitively and I provided a concrete example of TQQQ doing the opposite of QQQ over a given time period, something you're continuing to insist is impossible, so I'm not sure how else to explain it. If you took the Yahoo chart I showed and compressed it to the starting day and the ending day, you'd say Yahoo obviously made an error because while QQQ was going up TQQQ not only failed to "properly" go up faster it actually went down! And yes, my chart is compressing down to several weeks of return per point, and yes, when you look at snapshots several weeks apart it's not at all implausible for 3X the daily return to go down several periods in a row when QQQ goes up.


Again, this isn't unique analysis. If you do a Google you'll see the same thing from everyone who has taken the effort to build a simple excel spreadsheet to run the analysis. It's interesting that you're unwilling to make even a modicum of effort to do that while lobbing grenades at those who did. Are all of us curiously wrong in the same way? I would absolutely love to have you replicate this and show me that I had an error, in fact I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was an error somewhere if I had been the only one to do this analysis. But you haven't done that, you just keep saying that because 3X QQQ doesn't generally follow QQQ during a given time period it must be wrong. All of us who have done this must be wrong, but you who have not must be right?

I've also been debating this intuitively with you. Again, TQQQ is increasing and decreasing faster than QQQ. Your chart is the only chart where that doesn't occur.

 

[userque]

So I tried to explain it intuitively and I provided a concrete example of TQQQ doing the opposite of QQQ over a given time period, something you're continuing to insist is impossible,

Never said nor suggested that anything was impossible.

so I'm not sure how else to explain it.

I don't need you to explain anything. I was likely going to have to explain things to you.

If you took the Yahoo chart I showed and compressed it to the starting day and the ending day, you'd say Yahoo obviously made an error because while QQQ was going up TQQQ went down.

No. I wouldn't have said that.

And yes, my chart is compressing down to several weeks of return per point, and yes, when you look at snapshots several weeks apart it's not at all implausible for 3X the daily return to go down several periods in a row when QQQ goes up.

Your chart is inconsistent with at least one commercial charting platform. Pulling up another just to show you it's also inconsistent with another commercial platform would be a waste of time.

Again, this isn't unique analysis.

I did this sort of thing many years ago.

It's interesting that you're unwilling to make even a modicum of effort to do that while lobbing grenades at those who did.

You've been the one referencing Dunning Krueger and etc. When I start lobbing grenades, you'll know.

Are all of us curiously wrong in the same way?

I haven't seen "all of their" charts. Just yours. And yours is wrong.

I would absolutely love to have you replicate this and show me that I had an error,

That was my original intent. To teach you for free. Now, you couldn't pay me.

But you haven't done that, you just keep saying that because 3X QQQ doesn't generally follow QQQ during a given time period it must be wrong.

Never said that.

All of us who have done this must be wrong, but you who have not must be right?

Never said that. Not only are you bad at math; you're bad at bullshitting. That was a grenade.

Again, I haven't seen "all of their" charts. Only yours. And yours is wrong.

I'm neither right nor wrong. I asked you to explain why only your chart shows QQQ climbing faster than TQQQ. That's a fact that anyone can clearly see by looking at your chart. Then they can look at a commercial chart and see that, during the same time frame, TQQQ climbs faster than QQQ.

 

[Overnight]

The fuck I know about all this shit. All I know is, my new positions, entered after my happy profit exits on Labor day, are collapsing this week.

I once again bought at the tops. This could be it. Death and destruction for the bulls.

Go ahead, long the TQQQQQQQ and short the QQQ or whatever, I've been through this before. *sniffs* I fucking hate bears. They must all die.

 

[Sig]

I've also been debating this intuitively with you. Again, TQQQ is increasing and decreasing faster than QQQ. Your chart is the only chart where that doesn't occur.

View attachment 267605

Again, if you compressed the Yahoo chart to the start and end dates, it not only doesn't show TQQQ increasing faster than QQQ, but it decreases! Therefore between any two points longer than a day apart, it's demonstrably possible for TQQQ to not increase faster than QQQ, and in fact even do the opposite of QQQ. I guess I just don't understand, do you believe those two Yahoo points are false, or that that couldn't happen for several points in a row if you compressed your graph to showing several weeks per point?