저자: RichMan'sSecondHalf · 한국인
요약 보기
S&P500 기반 3배 레버리지 UPRO와 2배 SSO를 소개하며 나스닥 기반 TQQQ 대비 최근 1년·5년 수익률을 비교. 금융주 강세와 금리 인상 우려로 기술주가 상대적으로 부진했다고 설명. S&P500의 분산이 안정성을 준다고 주장하며, 레버리지는 자기자본 범위 내 적정 비중으로만 쓰라고 강조.
다듬은 글
Hello, this is "Rich Man's Second Half." Since it seems many of you are interested in leverage these days, I have prepared information today on U-Pro, a 3x leveraged fund based on the SMP 500 index, and SSO, a 2x leveraged fund. Just in case anyone wants to skip this, let me explain it briefly: you can think of the SMP 500 as an index formed by grouping the 500 most successful companies in the United States.
It is included in the "Big Three" major US indices. The portfolio is very diverse; it is composed of a wide variety of sectors, including technology, finance, and more, and you can view it as an index that represents the entire US industry. I cannot list all 500 companies individually right now, but to list just a few representative ones: Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Tesla, Nvidia Pay, Qualcomm, Netflix, PayPal, Modern, Pfizer, Intel, Salesforce, Bank of America, Citibank, Walt Disney, Visa, Ford, JP Morgan, Starbucks, Nike, Home Depot, and Berkshire Hathaway...
I will stop here. I hope you will take a look at what I have gathered. In this way, we have gathered 500 truly world-class companies listed in the U.S. across various sectors to create this portfolio, so its stability can truly be described as the ultimate in the world. Whether it is 2x or 3x leverage, since the fundamental base itself is the ultimate in the world, you can consider it to be less risky compared to other leverage options.
However, no matter how solid the foundation is, it is true that leverage inherently involves high volatility and risk. Therefore, if you have a weak mentality or are the type to lose sleep over even small losses, I absolutely do not recommend leverage. Let's clarify this point before we begin the video in earnest.
First, let's look at the returns over the past year, which you are likely most curious about. SPY, tracking the SMP 500 at 1x leverage, yielded 34%; SS, tracked at 2x leverage, yielded 78%; and U-Pro, tracking at 3x leverage, yielded 134%. While not exactly 2x or 3x, they certainly produce high returns.
For your reference, I added TQ and others tracking the Nasdaq 100 as three separate investments, and surprisingly... At 125%, it drops by 1% over the course of a year compared to 6%. Many of you are likely surprised to see this, because generally, it performs better than the 102 SMP 500. Now, there is a twist.
Let's take a long-term look at it over 5 years. Comparing the TQ Pro returns, TQ clearly shows overwhelming performance with 1700 at 22%, while U Pro is only 507 at 13%. Of course, 573 is also a tremendous amount of performance, but relatively speaking, it looks lackluster compared to TQ. Why did this result occur?
I speculate that the reason the SMP 500 return was exceptionally better than the NAS 100 over the past year was likely due to the significant influence of financial stocks. If you look at the screen now, comparing the recent one-year returns of five stocks— Q, which tracks the NAS 100, and financial stocks such as JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo— Q is at 35%.
It is in last place. On the other hand, financial stocks are soaring. Wells Fargo, in particular, showed a truly tremendous performance gain of 130%, and its performance is even better than TQ, which is a leveraged index based on the snapback generation. I mean, how can something like this even happen?
Honestly, I was a bit surprised too. How did such results come about? We saw what we have heard ad nauseam in the news over the past year. That is right, it is tapering and interest rate hikes. Tapering has just begun, and interest rate hikes are likely to start next year, but the concerns have already formed a shelf; as a result, tech stocks have been relatively negative, while financial stocks have risen significantly.
This is because if interest rates rise, the interest burden on tech stocks will increase, and banks' earnings will improve. Now, the important point here is that the NAS PAC is composed mainly of technology stocks excluding financial stocks, whereas the SMP 500 includes almost all diverse sectors, including financial stocks, without being restricted by sector.
You shouldn't misunderstand; I am not saying that the NAS PAC's growth rate is bad. It has risen a lot, but relatively speaking, over the past year, the SMP... It means it was more surprising than the 500. You can understand it as follows: that race contributed to this to some extent, and as a result, the new stocks that usually led have fallen slightly over the past year.
That is just one isolated example of the proposition, and naturally, other centers would have been influenced and received some degree of impact as well. For instance, stock prices rose significantly yesterday due to the spread of the Delta variant. Of course, it is not that there are absolutely no inverse stocks in the NASDAQ 100; in the case of all of them, they are included in both the SLP 500 and the NASDAQ 100.
However, Pfizer Workforce is not in the NASDAQ 100, and only has SMP this year. Since the inverse stock performance likely improved due to the spread of the Delta variant, the stock price naturally rose, and I believe that influence also affected the ETF. Returning to the main point, you should now have a sense of how broad and stable the S&P 500 is.
Because it encompasses many sectors, it is not significantly affected by specific sectors; while maintaining security, its volatility is fundamentally very low. This applies even to interest rate forecasts. Technology Even if the market shows weakness, financial stocks remain strong, so the various centers naturally complement each other.
On the other hand, because the Nasdaq is heavily skewed toward technology stocks, it tends to rise fiercely when it goes up, but also fall fiercely when it goes down. While this is n't a precise formula, if I had to define it, you could say the SMP 502 is a notch above in terms of stability, and you can consider the expected return to be slightly higher.
It is truly ironic, isn't it? Using the highly volatile 3x leverage based on the SMP 500 index, which pursues ultimate stability, feels somewhat contradictory. Perhaps that is why it might be even more attractive. There is a general prejudice that leverage is unconditionally dangerous, but I do not think so.
To be honest, I believe the U-Pro, based on the SMP 507, is much more stable than the U-Pro, which relies on estimating multipliers for something that has no pedigree. While it is true that leverage itself carries high volatility and risk, the feel can vary significantly depending on the underlying index.
In fact, investing in stocks you know nothing about or investing with excessive debt is far riskier than leverage. Even with leverage, if you invest with an appropriate proportion using just 10 units, it is not as dangerous as you might think. There are definitely advantages unique to leverage. For example, you could invest 3 million won in Han Dae-soo SPY, but you can achieve a similar effect by investing 1 million won in U-Pro.
So, you could invest only 1 million won and hold the remaining 2 million won in cash or invest it in bonds. To take an extreme scenario where we assume the SMP 502 plummets by 70%, it might actually be better to hold cash and invest in 3x leverage at 6% than to invest in 1x leverage in SPY. This is because, in a bull market, you can achieve a similar effect while stockpiling two- thirds of the funds for averaging down.
If utilized well like this, the advantage of leverage is that you can achieve similar results in a bull market while enabling dramatic averaging down in a bear market. It is not that leverage itself is dangerous, but rather that blind, all-in investments with full loans are dangerous. Let's look at another example: just invest 1 million won in Yoplait and the remaining 500,000 won or less You could simply invest 1,000,000 won in an inverse ETF.
In that case, it would produce a similar effect in a bull market, while generating profits in a bear market due to the "inverse ETF," allowing you to mitigate losses from 3x leverage to a certain extent. It is somewhat ironic to use an inverse ETF against the SMP 500, which does not constantly trend upward, but this is, of course, just a simplified example.
Even if you were to do so, it should be used restrictively. Also, I fundamentally do not invest in lean inverse ETFs; I merely used them as an example. Since leverage alone allows for numerous applications like this, I believe it is better to utilize it well and enter only in directions favorable to you, rather than viewing it unconditionally negatively.
Of course, there are definitely people who are constitutionally allergic to leverage; they simply dislike the high volatility itself. Looking at the comments, I saw some people mentioning domestic stocks because they didn't want to worry about the US market opening up. There were also those who mentioned domestic stocks due to tax issues, and in extreme cases, some who do not trade stocks at all because they do not want to lose even a single won, investing only within the limits covered by deposit insurance.
There are people who divide their investments by season and deposit them in banks. Is there a right or wrong answer? There is no such thing; it is simply a matter of personal preference. Personally, I do not put a single penny into bank savings or fixed deposits, but that does not mean I can criticize those who do.
We must respect relativity. Likewise, those who use bank savings should n't criticize stock traders for gambling. Furthermore, even among fellow stock traders, one cannot criticize others for using leverage simply because they are eccentric. If managed well, it is possible to generate high returns wisely.
Now, there is absolutely no need to overthink leverage. If you have the mental fortitude to endure extreme market crashes by averaging down and firmly believe in an upward trend, I think it is well worth investing with a moderate weighting. Of course, the basic condition is investing with 100% of your own money in a moderate proportion.
You must never invest recklessly by taking out full loans and going all-in. If you invest while fully understanding these characteristics and risks of leverage, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to give it a try at least once. The final choice is always up to you. By now, I think even the Jurinis...
I believe you have fully understood, so I will wrap up the video here. Thank you.
Comments 0