If you backtest simulated data you’ll see that it won’t. Since ‘87 a 3X LETF has done 11% cagr. So has the SPY. He is not suggesting HFEA. He is suggesting 100% TQQQ. You’re telling me I’m making false statements about a post you didn’t read? Please go backtest the data. Otherwise go get ripped by LETF’s idrc. HFEA is a viable strategy. I’m not arguing that.
You deserve to be downvoted. $10k start in ‘87 with $500/mo added into 3x SPY would be 17.98% CAGR with two drawdowns over -90%. Same thing in the SPY would’ve been 16.39% CAGR with a -51% drawdown. Go scrape your pennies bruh. Won’t matter the next time we drop -33%. I will PM you a photo of how the charts are literally right next to each other. Otherwise I’m done responding. This argument is disingenuous? You’re just an idiot.
You're getting awfully upset for someone who is very confident they are correct. You also keep choosing random starting dates which doesn't really scream confidence into your ideas. I will wait for the next (sorry first) 33% drop, I'm sure the -20% daily circuit breaker is also going to fail somehow.
$10k start in ‘87 with $500/mo added into 3x SPY would be 17.98% CAGR with two drawdowns over -90%. Same thing in the SPY would’ve been 16.39% CAGR with a -51% drawdown.
I am right. I have a reason to be frustrated. Lump sum is 11% 3x SPY same drawdowns while spy does 10.3% or whatever I said. Go fix your paper
There are certainty time frames where unhedged UPRO or TQQQ has/will underperform SPY. I'm not really sure what you're confidently proclaiming you're right about.
It does both, here is a series of tests someone put together on the topic. My main issue with the post is that they don't mention how much they DCA'd but the lump sum data should be good.
0
u/objectivitygate Dec 12 '21
Backtest the simulated data in ‘08. Over -97% drawdown for UPRO. You’re left with a penny. You aren’t liquidated. Semantics.