Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/calcul9/public_html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/functions/media.php on line 580

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/calcul9/public_html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/functions/media.php on line 583

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/calcul9/public_html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/functions/media.php on line 586

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/calcul9/public_html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/functions/media.php on line 589

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/calcul9/public_html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/functions/media.php on line 592

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/calcul9/public_html/wp-content/themes/suffusion/functions/media.php:580) in /home/calcul9/public_html/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: A Close Look at the Math Behind Leveraged ETF Returns https://www.calculatinginvestor.com/2011/04/29/geometric-vs-arithmetic/ Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:28:12 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8.9 By: Mark Machin https://www.calculatinginvestor.com/2011/04/29/geometric-vs-arithmetic/#comment-321676 Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:28:12 +0000 http://www.calculatinginvestor.com/?p=2647#comment-321676 Hi, I know this is an old post but, it is possible to estimate the time decay factor in an intraday basis? Thanks

]]>
By: Leveraged ETFS - Stocks and ETFs Trading | Big Mike Trading https://www.calculatinginvestor.com/2011/04/29/geometric-vs-arithmetic/#comment-195509 Mon, 28 Oct 2013 23:33:25 +0000 http://www.calculatinginvestor.com/?p=2647#comment-195509 […] […]

]]>
By: John A https://www.calculatinginvestor.com/2011/04/29/geometric-vs-arithmetic/#comment-133836 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:18:38 +0000 http://www.calculatinginvestor.com/?p=2647#comment-133836 In reply to John A.

Oops, the upro is based on total return, not price. Bloomberg adjusts upro price history for this payout. So the correct comparison is with the S&P 500 total return index. The cumulative total return of the s&p 500 (25 jun 2009 to 9 feb 2012) is 55.04%. The cumulative total return of holding upro over the same time frame is 159.11%. Three times the S&P return is 165.12%, so the upro lagged the target by 6% or about 2% a year, corresponding to ‘fees and expenses’. The choice of time interval is important. If the market is down or only up modestly over the given interval, the upro will more significantly lag the target of 3 times the S&P 500 total return.

]]>
By: John A https://www.calculatinginvestor.com/2011/04/29/geometric-vs-arithmetic/#comment-133799 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:47:45 +0000 http://www.calculatinginvestor.com/?p=2647#comment-133799 The triple bull S&P 500 (UPRO) is up 159.1% from inception (25 Jun 09) to 9 Feb 2012. Over the same period, the S&P 500 is up 46.9%. Therefore the triple bull has returned considerably more than 3 times the S&P 500 price return. I believe this is because the effective leverage rises in a bull market, magnifying the returns. The UPRO significantly underperformed a perfect triple (exp(ln(s&p)*3)), but if you were bullish, you were very happy with this return. I know I am.

Note this leveraging factor works both ways. The UPRO significantly underperformed the S&P*3 during last years selloff.

To mimic a true triple leveraged investment, you would continually sell some upro over a bull market otherwise your original capital investment would become too highly leveraged. As you gradually withdrew funds in a bull market, your original capital would be returned and therefore not at risk, while you would continue to participate in the upside. When a big selloff occurs, you would buy more upro at the lower price with the cash you have withdrawn and play the game again. A very interesting option to consider.

]]>
By: Joseph Clarke https://www.calculatinginvestor.com/2011/04/29/geometric-vs-arithmetic/#comment-127000 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 21:08:16 +0000 http://www.calculatinginvestor.com/?p=2647#comment-127000 This is really excellent analysis. Have you considered how leveraged inverse ETFs perform in relation to volatility?

If you follow Chang and Mandhavan’s (2009) analysis it would suggest that a -3x ETF has a higher expected decay than a 3x ETF as their exponential decay expression has a term -(x^2-x)*sigma^2.

]]>
By: calcinv https://www.calculatinginvestor.com/2011/04/29/geometric-vs-arithmetic/#comment-64500 Sat, 14 May 2011 16:28:19 +0000 http://www.calculatinginvestor.com/?p=2647#comment-64500 In reply to Jev.

Hi Jev, Thanks for visiting my site. Your Quantum Blog site looks very interesting as well. I’ll try out some of the Matlab code.

]]>
By: Jev https://www.calculatinginvestor.com/2011/04/29/geometric-vs-arithmetic/#comment-64404 Sat, 14 May 2011 11:19:31 +0000 http://www.calculatinginvestor.com/?p=2647#comment-64404 Excellent analysis! I’ll refer to the math in a post on FAS-FAZ relationship.

]]>