pull down to refresh

I give zero fucks and will apologize nada for sharing an update to this story (#979485). (Plus, if it's good enough for Mr. Levine, it's good enough for me!)
Crazy to leverage your 401(k) account? No, actually not. Here's "Diversification Across Time", a 15-year-old paper by two researchers at Yale... figuring out that actually if you did this, you'd be better off!

"By employing leverage to gain more exposure to stocks when young, individuals can achieve better diversification across time. Using stock data going back to 1871 we show that early leverage combined with reduced equity exposure when older can reduce lifetime portfolio risk"

...and it gets worse:
You can pretty easily go buy an ETF that offers twice the daily return of the S&P 500 index. As we have discussed, holding a daily 2x S&P ETF for 30 years probably will not give you twice the 30-year performance of the S&P: These funds rebalance every day, creating “volatility drag” that can reduce returns. But, you know, maybe? The 10-year total return of the ProShares 2x S&P 500 fund is about 18.3% per year; the equivalent for an unlevered S&P 500 fund is about 12.4%: You’re not exactly getting 2x exposure, but you’re getting more than 1x.
Even Levine himself is unhappy about the messaging:
This is extremely not investing advice but I am passing it along because these ETFs are all plastered with warnings saying “this is intended to be held for one day and will get real weird after that,” and putting them in a 401(k) to hold for decades is among the more counterintuitive things that my readers have found to do with their personal accounts.
Yup, fiat logic is crushing us these days (#980184)

non-paywalled via newsletterhunt: https://newsletterhunt.com/emails/188138
There must be some corresponding group that's holding too many shares, then. Right? Or, is it saying that shares are underpriced, in general?
Something weird is being said here.
reply
hm, mayhaps.
some corresponding group that's holding too many shares, the current cohort of retirees...?
reply
Ok, so that means there's some misallocation that they're making. If it's just that they should be spending down their savings more, that would be very convenient for the implied model.
reply
I suppose...? Say more
reply
I'm just trying to figure out who has the shares that these younger folks are "supposed" to have and what the error is that's leading them to hold the shares.
The easiest answer, that I think you've written about, is that Boomers aren't spending enough. The win-win, then, is Boomers get more utility from consumption by selling their stonks and millennials get the stonks they should have.
reply
Hmmm ok, that sounds about right in general.
I suspect he dudes looking at this weren't considering general eq conditions like that, just intertemporal savings for a young person growing into retirement
I think it's an entirely partial equilibrium analysis. So, taking prices as given, so and so would've been better off if they did this or that. But the analysis doesn't extend to what would happen to prices if everyone followed that advice
reply
I suspect that’s right. It obviously takes relatively few people acting on advice to lever up, before other things start happening.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 17h
Most 401k programs dont you leverage like this.
reply