Why Daily Rebalancing Complicates Long-Term Leveraged ETF Returns
Summary
The document questions whether daily leveraged ETFs can serve as long-term investments and whether switching between bullish and bearish funds could improve returns. It describes a simple simulation that compounds daily leveraged returns generated from normally distributed inputs, then reports that this model appears to favor leveraged exposure even at high volatility.
The author recognizes that the model omits fund fees and assumes normally distributed daily returns, and asks what else may be wrong. The central issue is that a leveraged ETF targets a multiple of each day’s return, so its multi-day outcome depends on the path of returns and repeated rebalancing. A model must compound the leveraged daily returns consistently and account for volatility drag, financing and management costs, and the difficulty of identifying bull and bear regimes in advance. The document offers no validated simulation results or strategy comparison, so its apparent outperformance is a prompt for model scrutiny rather than evidence that leveraged funds reliably outperform over long horizons.
Key ideas
- Daily leverage creates multi-day outcomes that depend on the sequence of returns, not only their average.
- A simulation of leveraged ETFs must compound leveraged daily returns consistently with daily rebalancing.
- Ignoring costs and regime timing limits conclusions about long-term performance.
- The reported model’s apparent advantage does not establish that leveraged ETFs outperform in practice.
Tags
Full text
# Long Term investment in leveraged ETFs not necessarily bad?
# Long Term investment in leveraged ETFs not necessarily bad?
I have conducted very much research about leveraged ETFs lately. Most sources specifically say that these instruments are not meant for long-term investments and that they are very risky due to the daily recalibration. However, judging by the price of some leveraged ETFs like the SPXL it does seem like they have the potential to be good investments. Of course instruments of this kind should only be used in bullish phases. Nevertheless shouldn't a combination of ETFs like the SPXL for bull phases and the SPXS for bear phases yield superior returns? I have tried to estimate potential returns based on random variables in R. The code is as follows:
> X = 0 ETF = function(L,r_avg,v,t){ for (i in 1:t) { if (i == 1) X = 1 * (1+ L*rnorm(1,r_avg,v)) else {if (i == t) return(X*(1+L* rnorm(1,r_avg,v)) else X = X* norm(1,r_avg,v)}
Given a leverage L, an average daily return r_avg, a volatility/variance v and a time period t, the function calculates the return of an investment under these circumstances. Of course the model is extremely basic. It only considers returns that can be modeled using the normal distribution and does not consider that there are extra fees for leveraged ETFs. However, in this model the leveraged investments generally outcompete non-leveraged versions even when the volatility is very high. This seems strange, since the sources that I have reviewed suggest that when volatility is high the leveraged funds will be bad choices due to the volatility drag. If someone could clear things up that would be great! Can leveraged ETFs really be long term investment vehicles? And if not, then what is wrong with my model?Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.