Leveraged ETFs and High School Level Mathematical Truths
- Posted by kid dynamite
- on April 3rd, 2011
There’s a common misunderstanding about ultra (leveraged) ETFs out there, but it makes me sad to see authors at the Wall Street Journal exhibit this ignorance and unawareness. Dave Kansas writes:
“Conversely, the ProShares UltraShort S&P 500 ($SDS), which makes a double bet against the S&P 500, is down 40% in the past year, which compares to a 13% gain for the S&P 500. That means the “double” bet against the index is doing worse than promised, highlighting another risk for such funds: They often fail to track their stated performance goals.”
I’m tempted to leave it as an exercise to my readers to figure out why I’m bothering to write this piece about how completely unacceptable it is for a writer at the U.S. Financial Paper of Record to make a statement like that (which demonstrates gross misunderstanding), but let me just give you a hint – from the ProShares UltraShort S&P 500 fund web page (emphasis THEIRS – not mine – they put it in bold face and italics for you):
This ETF seeks a return of -200% of the return of an index (target) for a single day. Due to the compounding of daily returns, ProShares’ returns over periods other than one day will likely differ in amount and possibly direction from the target return for the same period. Investors should monitor their ProShares holdings consistent with their strategies, as frequently as daily. For more on correlation, leverage and other risks, please read the prospectus.
For readers who still don’t get it, let me lay it out there for you: compounded daily returns do not equal compounded long term returns. Make yourself a spreadsheet – do the math – it’s not rocket science.
-KD
ps – If you take your investment research one step further, not even to the full prospectus for SDS, but simply to the abbreviated summary prospectus which simplifies all the legal mumbo jumbo, the very first paragraph tells you:
“ProShares UltraShort S&P500 (the “Fund”) seeks investment results for a single day only, not for longer periods. This means that the return of the Fund for a period longer than a single trading day will be the result of each day’s returns compounded over the period, which will very likely differ from twice (200%) the inverse of the return of the S&P 500® (the “Index”) for that period. In periods of higher market volatility, the volatility of the Index may be at least as important to the Fund’s return for the period as the return of the Index.”
They also emphasize this point in bold-faced font two more times over the next 4 paragraphs.
Kid Dynamite is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. If you click on my Amazon.com links and buy anything, even something other than the product advertised, I earn a small commission, yet you don't pay any extra. Thank you for your support.
The information in this blog post represents my own opinions and does not contain a recommendation for any particular security or investment. I or my affiliates may hold positions or other interests in securities mentioned in the Blog, please see my Disclaimer page for my full disclaimer.
-
This blog has morphed from a discussion of poker hands and theory into an evaluation of financial markets from the point of view of a former trader. More » -
If you'd like to make a donation, I always appreciate it:
I'm also a member of the Amazon.com Affiliate program. -
Recent Posts
- Amazon – A Logistics Story
- Senate Subcommittee Hearings on Apple’s Taxes – Grandstanding Dbags
- HomeBrew Batch #29 – Mustard Brown Ale
- The Most Exciting 8 Seconds of My Night
- The Kid’s Still Got It
- Is Anyone Surprised That Fish McBites Suck?
- Poker and Trading – Birds of a Feather
- Matt Kemp: Respect
- The Difference Between Women and Men: Dog Poop Edition
- You Can Not Make This Stuff Up
-
-
Categories
-
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- February 2001
-