%%
So TQQQ is up approximately 3500% from inception (feb 2010 (the chart is not cherry picked but from inception))Oh yeah, their just F'n terrible!
View attachment 199239
Leverage is bad when you're stupid about it.
So TQQQ is up approximately 3500% from inception (feb 2010 (the chart is not cherry picked but from inception))
QQQ is in that period from appr. 45 to 180 (so 300% up)
QQQ pays dividend (TQQQ does not). Let's assume that this is (compounded) an extra 100%. So long QQQ earned 400%.
Quite astonishing that the leverage pulls much more (up) than the decay + management fee (down).
Yes, the rebalancing constitutes an inverse vol-pump, minus fees. A small investoer with a RobinHood (close to zero transaction costs when rebalancing MOC) could easily implement an actual vol-pump on the QQQ and commensurately outperform the unleveraged index index over the 19 year period.Here is a 2 times leverage Nasdaq-100 index fund history from inception.
... down 30% after 19 years.
Yes, the rebalancing constitutes an inverse vol-pump, minus fees. A small investoer with a RobinHood (close to zero transaction costs when rebalancing MOC) could easily implement an actual vol-pump on the QQQ and commensurately outperform the unleveraged index index over the 19 year period.
Very interesting comments. I was thinking about rebalancing my levered portfolio to reduce drawdown risks.Yes, the rebalancing constitutes an inverse vol-pump, minus fees. A small investoer with a RobinHood (close to zero transaction costs when rebalancing MOC) could easily implement an actual vol-pump on the QQQ and commensurately outperform the unleveraged index index over the 19 year period.