Reasons to Run From Leveraged Funds

April 22, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Let's say you think the S&P is bound to go up--way up--in the coming months. Why not double down with a leveraged fund that gives you double the return of the S&P? Or on the other hand, if you're convinced that a sector is going to fall hard, why not bet against it with a fund that returns three times the opposite of that sector's index?

It's not as simple as it sounds. Kiplinger columnist and investment adviser Steven Goldberg (a former colleague of mine) explains the arithmetic behind these funds and why they often return a lot less than you'd expect. The most important thing to know is that they only deliver the performance of a single day, not of a year or even a month. That fact makes a huge difference. Consider his example:

The Vanguard REIT Index fund tumbled 50% through April 7. Now, suppose you were smart enough to buy a fund that goes in the opposite direction of the Vanguard fund, namely ProFunds Short Real Estate fund. Its objective is to return the inverse of a REIT index. Your gain: Not 50%. Not even 25%. Instead, you lost 11%.

The story delves into the specifics of the strategy and includes several other examples that illustrate the hazards of investing in leveraged and inverse funds. Goldberg's conclusion: "Like cigarettes, these funds tell you on the package exactly what they do. And just as surely as cigarettes can cut years off your life, these funds can reduce your wealth substantially. You're better off at the craps tables."

Leveraged and inverse strategies are popping up in ETF form as well. Here's a look at one of the newer offerings, which seeks to triple the return of a given index.

For a quick primer on exchange-traded funds, see 10 Things You Didn't Know About ETFs.

Tags:
investing

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

i can give you 16 billion reasons one for every human being on the planet today.

dean hindmarsh 7:23AM January 21, 2011

I keep seeing articles where these funds are compared to their benchmark for an even number of days. But isn't one major idea behind "buy and hold" that there are more up days than down? If so the correct comparison would be a trading period where the benchmark was up 6 or 7 days out of 10.

Reminds me of the economist that didn't believe he saw a dollar on the ground, because in an efficient market someone else would already have picked it up.

Dan of CO 5:26PM April 12, 2010

I also do not think this is right. Take UUPIX, from ProFunds (mentioned in the article).

For the last year, UUPIX is up 150%, which is exactly twice the index it is trying to double (ADRE). Most other emerging market funds (non-leveraged) are doing about 95% (so UUPIX is beating them), including GTDDX, and FEMKX. Some other funds are doing under 50% (so UUPIX is 3x them!), such as VDMIX.

So, if, like me, you thought the market would go up after the crash, this was a great medium-term (1-1.5 year) investment, and looks to continue being so until this bull has run out of steam, no?

jeff Clune of MI 12:49AM January 18, 2010

New Money

Katy Marquardt, a senior editor at U.S.News & World Report, takes a contemporary look at happenings in the financial world and aims to help young investors get going with their portfolios--or just sound cool at cocktail parties. Have a question? E-mail Katy at newmoney@usnews.com

advertisement