Are Triple Leveraged ETFs suitable for long term holding - forex trading strategies with macd

Are Triple Leveraged ETFs suitable for long term holding ~ forex trading strategies with macd

Triple leveraged ETFs marketed by Direxion have been all the rage lately. The fund management company says that they do not recommend buying and holding these ETFs. But is there any mathematical justification for this caution?

Before I answer this, it is interesting to note that these ETFs (e.g. BGU is 3x Russell 1000, TNA is 3x Russell 2000) are managed as constant rebalanced portfolios, a concept I discussed before. In other words, the fund manager has to sell stocks (or futures) when there is a loss, and buy stocks (or futures) when there is a gain in the market value of the portfolio, in order to maintain a constant leverage ratio of 3. This is also identical to what Kelly formula would prescribe, a methodology discussed extensively in my book, if the optimal leverage f were indeed 3.

However, the optimal f for such market indices are quite a bit lower than 3. Both Russell 1000 and 2000 have f at about 1.8. This means that since the funds are leveraged at 3, there is a real possibility that sustained losses could ruin the funds (i.e. NAV going to zero unless new capital is injected, which, er..., reminds me of a Ponzi scheme). So I would argue that not only should an investor not hold these funds for the long term, the funds themselves should not be leveraged at this level. Otherwise, it is a disaster waiting to happen.
More info for Are Triple Leveraged ETFs suitable for long term holding ~ forex trading strategies with macd:

In praise of ETFs - urban forex trading strategies

In praise of ETFs ~ urban forex trading strategies

I have learned some years ago that ETFs are strange and wonderful creatures. Simple, long-only mean-reverting strategies that work very well on ETFs, wont work on their component stocks. (Check out a nice collection of these strategies in Larry Connors book "High Probability ETF Trading". He has also packaged these strategies into a single indicator, the ETF Power Ratings, on tradingmarkets.com.) Simple pair trading strategies like the one I discussed in my book, also work much more poorly on stocks than on ETFs. Why is that?

Well, one obvious reason is that, as Larry mentioned in his book, ETFs are not likely to go bankrupt (with the notable exception of the triple-leveraged ETFs, as I explained previously), because a whole sector or country is not likely to go bankrupt. So you can pretty much count on mean-reversion if you are on the long side.

Another obvious reason is that though there are news which will affect the valuation of a whole sector or country, these arent as frequent or as devastating as news affecting individual stocks. And believe me, news is the biggest enemy of mean-reversion.

But finally, I believe that the capital weightings of the component stocks also play a part in promoting mean-reversion. Typically, weighting of a component stock increases with its market capitalization, though not necessarily linearly. Perhaps large-cap stocks are more prone to mean-reversion than small-cap stocks? But more intriguingly, can we not construct a basket of stocks, with custom-designed weightings, with the objective of optimizing its short-term mean-reversion property? I (and others before me) have done something similar in constructing a basket of stocks that cointegrate best with an index. Can we not construct a basket that is simply stationary (with perhaps a constant drift)?

Now, perhaps you will agree with me that ETFs are strange and wonderful creatures.
More info for In praise of ETFs ~ urban forex trading strategies: