저자: 미상 · 한국인
요약 보기
3배 레버리지 ETF(TQQQ, TMF 등)의 변동성 끌림(volatility drag)과 이자 비용은 횡보·상승장에서는 오히려 유리하고, 하락장에서도 이자 영향은 미미하다고 주장. 나스닥 지수는 과거 전고점을 회복해왔으므로 TQQQ 투자가 유리하지만, 개별 종목 3배 레버리지(예: 테슬라)는 위험하다고 설명. TLT/TMF는 박스권에 갇혀 있어 박스 하단 매수 전략이 유효할 수 있다고 언급.
다듬은 글
Regarding Soksul TMF, I heard the Suabi fee is as high as 12%. Is this okay? Let me show you a simulation first. Let's assume the 1x leverage fluctuated between 100 and 90 a total of three times. The 1x leverage ultimately reaches 100. Now, what happens with the 3x leverage? Of course, the stock price will melt away.
It melted by a whopping 20%. It ultimately becomes 81.3. So, is the leverage ruined now? No. Unlike the 1x leverage, leverage allows you to split-buy at lower prices. During that melting process, the average purchase price will become much lower. This means the account isn't built until it melts. In reality, if you had blindly split-buyed with fixed amounts, the average purchase price for the 1x leverage would be 95.5 with a return of + 4.8%, while the average purchase price for the leverage would be 77.4 with a return of +5.1%.
Even if the stock price melts away due to volatility drag during sideways trading, the account return is better. Contrary to common sense, volatility drag is a blessing for leverage investors. Now, let's talk about Suabi. Let's apply this. If we make it drop by 2% with each exercise, creating a stock that drops a total of 6 times, we can consider it to have fallen by approximately 12%.
2 multiplied by 6 is 12. With a 3x multiplier, the final value becomes 81.3, but the one with the Suhabija applied ends up at 72.0. Before applying the Suhabija, it was 81.3; after applying it, it is 72.0. It dropped significantly, didn't it? If we look at this based on a 1x multiplier, it went from 100 to 72.0, so it dropped by almost 30% more.
The stock price is extremely high. Now, let's see if the return is better in this case since we can buy at a lower price. The average purchase price for the fixed-amount split purchase is 72.6, and since the final price is 70.0, the return is approximately -0.7%. Here, it is a loss. However, it is not as big a loss as we feared.
Just because the stock price ultimately drops by another 12% does not mean my return drops by another 12%. The account has dropped by about 4.4%. In reality, in what form... It shows different results depending on whether it moves sideways. Let's look at a real-world example. On May 22, the closing price of QQ was 337.64.
Since the closing price about a year ago, on April 14, 2022, was 338.43, there is almost no difference between the two values. On the other hand, for the same period, the closing price of TQ on April 14 last year was 47, while the current closing price on May 22 is 32.07. Even though QQ returned to its original position while consolidating, TQ fell by a whopping 32%.
This minus 32% is not solely due to volatility drag; it is the result that reflects all costs, including interest and liquidity. Then, the result of mindless dollar-cost averaging is 295.97, with a return of + 14%. The average purchase price for TQQ is 24.9, with a return of 28.8%; as expected, 3x leverage demonstrates strength in a moving market.
Based on this, we can draw the following conclusion: in a sideways market—in other words, from the perspective that a fallen index recovers to its original position— You can ignore volatility drag or interest costs; in fact, it is even better. Since you can buy at a lower price, the average purchase price of your account drops significantly.
In a sideways market, volatility patterns and interest costs are a blessing—a grace—that allows you to buy stocks cheaper. Since we have observed sideways trading, naturally we must also look at cases where the price only rises and cases where it only falls. That is the case. That is how we can make correct judgments, so we do not blindly rely on wishful thinking.
Let's look at a case where the price rises continuously from the first purchase. If the 1x leverage starts at 100 and increases by 10% every time, it ultimately reaches 177. Here, the average purchase price for split buying is 131, with a return of + 35.5%. The average purchase price for leverage is 192, with a return of 151.2%.
The average purchase price for leverage with interest costs applied is 184, with a return of 131.9%. Just like with sideways trading, the return drops a bit when interest costs are taken into account. However, I don't think there is any need to worry. After all, you have earned more than four times as much as with the 1x leverage.
Now, let's look at the case where the price only falls. Let's take a look. If the price drops by 10% every time starting from the first purchase, it reaches a final value of 53 after 7 drops. Here, the loss rate is -25.5%. With 3x leverage, the final price is 12, the average purchase price is 27, and the loss rate is -56.3%.
However, when applying interest costs, the final price is 25, the average purchase price is 25, and the loss rate is -57.3%. Again, considering interest costs results in greater losses. Interestingly, however, in a bear market, the difference between applying interest costs and not applying them is not significant—about 1.5%.
This is also due to the compounding effect. In a bear market, the negative compounding effect of falling less applies to interest costs as well. In conclusion, it is also good to ignore interest costs. Whether the price moves sideways, rises, or only falls, interest costs themselves do not create a meaningful difference.
In fact, when applying a real-world example—that is, one year ago—we found that the return on TQ, which was subject to such interest costs and volatility drag, was better. This is despite the fact that the final price fell by as much as 30%. Therefore, regarding volatility drag and interest costs, 3x leverage investment I don't think that should be a factor when making a decision.
So, what should we consider when investing in leveraged ETFs? The real problem with leveraged investing is whether the underlying stock—the 1x leverage—can recover, at the very least, to its previous high. No matter how much you average down or significantly lower your average purchase price, if the underlying stock fails to recover its previous high, lowering the average purchase price is meaningless.
Therefore, you must invest in something that is likely to recover at least its previous high. What is that? It is the index. History shows us that indices have always recovered their previous highs. That is why we invest in TQQ. However, individual stocks are not like that. In the vast majority of cases, they fail to recover their previous highs.
Even though countless promising companies have gone through the rise and fall, indices have always recovered and, furthermore, have trended upward. From that perspective, investing three times the Nasdaq index is worthwhile. However, investing three times the leverage of an individual stock can be a bit risky.
For example, investing 3x in Tesla can be somewhat risky. What other cases are there? TLT, which is a 1x leveraged TMF, has always been trapped in a trading range. It always created a new box and moved only within it. Therefore, TLT trended upward. You ca n't simply assume that it will always go up.
Of course, TMF investors don't invest believing in an upward trend either. Even if the market gets stuck in a trading range, if there is strong logical evidence indicating the bottom of the box, buying at the bottom and selling at the top can be a good strategy. I will try to prepare a video related to TMFs next time.
Many of you have asked about the interest and costs associated with 3x leverage, so today we took some time to discuss that aspect. Was this helpful? If so, please like and subscribe. Thank you.
Comments 0