저자: 리치오빠 · 한국인
요약 보기
3배 레버리지 ETF(TQQQ, SOXL)에 적립식으로 투자한 1년 1개월 실계좌 성과를 공개. 과거 수익률은 TQQQ 19.26%, SOXL 6.86%로 낮았으나, 하락장 분할매수로 계좌 비중은 SOXL 98%, TQQQ 75%로 기록. 레버리지 적립식의 하락 방어 효과와 후반부 물타기 효과 감소의 한계를 설명하고, 자금 비중 제한(예: 20% 이내)과 배당주 분산을 권고.
다듬은 글
Hello, this is Rich Oppa. I am very attracted to 3x leverage stocks like TQQ and SOXL, so about a year and a month ago, I opened a "Middle-aged Person" account to show you my investment performance firsthand. Since I opened it on July 21, 2022, it has been exactly one year and one month. Of course, my investment method may not be the definitive answer, but I believe that dollar-cost averaging is more suitable for 3x leverage than the "beggar-style" approach.
I also believe that buying more than usual—when the market is at its worst, when everyone else is criticizing, and when there seems to be no hope—is the shortcut to high returns. Now, looking at the returns on a lump-sum basis from July 21, 2022, when I upgraded my account, until recently, TQQ is 19.26% and SOXL is 6.86%.
Well, I have n't incurred any losses, but considering how much I've invested, the returns are frankly quite meager. At this rate, it would probably be better to just invest in Apple or SPY. At least the emotional distress would be... It is much less than this one. The reason we invest with 3x leverage is that even though the risk and stress are high, we willingly accept them because we can achieve equally large returns.
It feels a bit unfair to say that we go through emotional distress and invest with 3x leverage just to earn a mere 6% or 19% return. However, the problem we cannot discuss here is that the returns I just mentioned are based on falsehoods. I mentioned in my invitation that it is essential to split the leverage with 3x leverage.
In particular, prices fell significantly last August, September, and October. A drop in stock prices means you can buy shares at a much cheaper price. If you buy intensively during this period, investment performance will naturally be good. Especially since Soksuri dropped significantly compared to TQ during this time, if you had bought Soksuri intensively in that zone, the return might actually be much better than TQ.
Now, let's take a look at my actual account. Soksuri is 98%, and TQ is 75%. Is n't that really strange? When viewed against the standard of falsehoods, TQ is 19% and Soksuri is 6%. Clearly. TQ showed better returns, and while the " Tentacle" strategy only yielded a mere 6% profit, looking at my actual account, the "Hypnosis" strategy accounts for 98%.
Why did this result occur? I will explain it to you now. Both TQ and the "Hypnosis" strategy utilize 3x leverage. They rise more in a bull market and fall more in a bear market. They rise and fall a whopping three times more than the underlying index. Interpreting this literally, split buying in a bull market yields quite decent profits; at the very least, it will generate more profit than split buying with a single leverage.
Furthermore, split buying in a bear market allows you to dramatically lower your average purchase price by the amount that drops more. If I had not split-bought during a bear market and simply held off, the price might have dropped by 90%. However, by entering the market and defending against losses down to just -50%, I can recover my principal quickly with just a 2x increase, whereas it would have required a 10x rise to recover it.
In other words, the greatest advantage of split buying is that it protects against risk in a bear market while allowing for very rapid recovery in a bull market. So, contrary to what many people think, it is beneficial because it generates more profit in a bull market. It is good because you can buy a lot at a much cheaper price in a bear market, and it is not as dangerous as you might think.
However, there is a very fatal major drawback. What is it is that the effect of dollar-cost averaging drops significantly as you get closer to the later stages. For example, let's say my current investment principal is 1 million won. If I average down by just 1 million won, the sacrifice rate would be 50%.
But let's say I have been investing through dollar-cost averaging for 20 years and my principal has now grown to 1 billion won. In that case, averaging down by 1 million won when the principal is 1 billion won wo n't make much of a difference. If I planned to buy in installments for 20 years, and this year is the 19th year, but unfortunately, I get hit squarely by a market crash that drops 90% in the 19th year, then, to be blunt, I would practically go bankrupt.
This is because so much money has already been invested that not only is there no room to average down, but even if I did, I could barely lower the price per square meter. So, what should you do in this situation? You should either secure cash through me or move your assets to a one-multiplier level.
Shifting your portfolio or diversifying it somewhat into dividend stocks would be a great help in mitigating risk. Alternatively, you could simply avoid investing too heavily in it from the start. For instance, you might decide to invest no more than 20%. Since 3x leverage is too volatile and the averaging-down effect diminishes towards the end, you might choose not to exceed 20% from the beginning to avoid losing your composure.
Then, even if you get hit by a massive crash at the end, you wo n't feel too wronged because you have the remaining 80%. You can adjust it according to your own investment style or financial situation; I cannot dictate this for you. I usually emphasize dollar-cost averaging, but in fact, it is not a perfect investment method.
Imagine you are using dollar-cost averaging, but historically, the market experiences the largest crash in the shortest amount of time. In that case, you have lost a tremendous opportunity cost. If you had known a historical surge was coming, you should have gone all-in instead of using dollar-cost averaging.
Imagine you take profits on 50% to hedge against risk, only for the stock to skyrocket tenfold afterward. How painful would that be? Warren Buffett clearly stated that cash is like oxygen, yet... cash You could end up losing a 10x return by allocating too much of your position. Therefore, dollar-cost averaging is not a suitable investment strategy for every situation; in fact, it is a better approach during a bear market.
To be more honest, the most significant aspect is the mindset that even if I make less profit during a bull market, I am preparing for a potential crash. In a way, it is a defensive investment method. But why is this important? As I mentioned earlier, if you do not use dollar-cost averaging, you could drop by as much as 90% during a bear market.
Once you have already fallen to 90%, the price needs to rise tenfold to recover your principal. However, if you use dollar-cost averaging to set up a 50% defense, you can recover your principal even if the price only doubles. So, rather than regretting not making a large profit, you should instead focus on defending against a massive drop at all costs.
What if you make a little less profit during a bull market? Since you have set up a defense during a bear market, you will actually see much greater profits in the long run. I approach dollar-cost averaging with this mindset. Of course, the effectiveness of dollar-cost averaging will decrease significantly towards the later stages, but after all, there is no such thing as a 100% perfect investment method.
You can simply adjust this aspect according to your own style. I think that is it. Well then, I will end the video here. Thank you.
Comments 0