No, the Dollar is Not in Danger

No, the Dollar is Not in Danger — For a simple reason: there’s nothing to take its place.

Record your investing question at 303-747-4428, or email me.

——

Episode Notes

Note: The following is not a word-for-word transcript. For that, please see the episode on YouTube.

The dollar is back in the news, as it has been every few months for the past, oh, three decades or more. Consider some recent headlines.

MarketWatch
4/17/23
“The US dollar is under fire from rival nations. What happens to markets if the greenback loses its world dominance?”

Yahoo Finance
4/14/23
“US Dollar Slips to One-Year Low: ETFs to Gain/Lose”

Now, for some perspective, consider the following CNBC story from a decade ago.

CNBC
10/14/13
“Default Fears Put Dollar’s Reserve Status at Risk”

From that story comes a take that should be familiar, if you’ve followed recent news. Here’s a quote from the decade-old CNBC story:

“Anxiety over a potential US debt default has led some analysts to question whether the greenback’s days as a global reserve currency are numbered.”

But that was then, you might think, and this is now. Maybe the dollar survived that scare, but it might not survive this one. The dollar is in danger.

Before I provide some background, here’s a preview:

No, the dollar is not in danger.

The big picture is no different today than it was through the past umpteen dollar scares since the Reagan administration. You know why?

Because there’s nothing to take the dollar’s place.

Let’s go to a recent call about this issue.

Today’s call is from Michele Garner in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, whose brother is worried about the end of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency:

Brother thinks with all the US debt countries will stop using the US dollar for trading. This will make the dollar worthless and therefore stocks worthless.

This is a repeating bearish warning, and as baseless today as it was every time I covered it in the past.

I’m not sure why it holds such appeal, but it’s easy to dismiss.

I’ll turn to last March 27th’s Note 13 as to why. From that letter’s “The Chase” section, which is the upfront executive summary of each Sunday letter’s contents. From The Chase of last year’s Note 13:

“It’s back: the baseless alarm that the dollar will lose its reserve currency status. As ever, all you need to know is the following:

“The dollar will not lose its reserve currency status, for a simple reason: there’s nothing to take its place.”

The feature article in last year’s Note 13 was titled “The Dollar’s Reserve Currency Status.” It began by referring back to the idea that there’s nothing to take the dollar’s place, as reported in Note 28 sent 7/11/21.

Why do I refer back to so many previous references to this idea?

To illustrate that it’s nothing new, just an apparently evergreen bearish scare point. It comes up anytime there’s a surge in government spending, a wave of fascism accusations, or a claim by hopeful Chinese analysts that a change of the international order is inevitable.

Back in September 2020, Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, believed the dollar’s reserve currency status was in jeopardy because of the measures the US had taken to support its economy through the pandemic.

Because he’s a big shot in the financial world, people said we should listen to Dalio, a “smart guy” and run from US assets.

I noted that the US had experienced social unrest for four months, but the dollar had not so much as wobbled on its perch. The country had been hit by hurricanes, wildfires, and pandemic arguments, but not once had the reign of the dollar looked tenuous. I concluded, quote from Note 28 sent 7/11/21:

“Through the vicissitudes of politics, social movements, and technological innovation, the Federal Reserve has remained a rock of stability. It even withstood direct attacks on its legitimacy by presidents demanding accommodative policies, and not just from the current administration. It is one of America’s most reliable institutions, indeed one of the world’s. Its steady hand on the tiller is not something the world will easily abandon.”

In 2021, data from the International Monetary Fund showed global foreign exchange reserve composition to be as follows:

2021 Global Foreign Exchange
Reserve Composition (%)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

60 US Dollar
20 Euro
10 Other
6 Yen
4 Pound Sterling

It’s a long way from 60 to no longer being the reserve currency. The contender in second place is all the way down at 20, and is a basket case of a currency by comparison. From Note 28:

“Europe is in constant turmoil, a clash of cultures that fails to unite punctilious Germany with freewheeling Greece. Durability of the currency bloc is forever in doubt, a risk more perilous than another batch of Congress critters at the purse strings.”

“Oh, but what about China?” people ask.

China is the most overhyped potential economic leader of all time. It’s miles away from being able to lead the world—on much of anything, but certainly when it comes to reliable currency reserves. Again, from Note 28:

“China? Forget it. The mandarins in charge engage in so much financial flimflammery and opaque reporting that the renminbi could never cut it as the world’s chief currency. They don’t even have enough confidence to let it float freely on the exchange market. You and I will stand at the great ATM in the sky before the People’s Bank of China garners as much respect as the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank. The renminbi accounts for 3% of central bank reserves, which is about 2.9 percentage points too high, in my view.”

On top of all this, people just plain misunderstand the implications of currency strength and weakness.

At first blush, it seems we should not want dollar weakness. We should want a strong dollar, right? Wrong. You know what was considered one of the drivers of last year’s stock-market crash? Dollar strength.

That’s right. It wasn’t higher interest rates per se, but their resulting dollar strength. Bulls said that the chart to watch for a turning point in the stock market was the US dollar, in hopes of it weakening.

Last year, from January 3 to its peaks in September and October, the dollar rose 18% against the euro and 30% against the yen. The October 3 cover of Bloomberg Businessweek read:

“Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop: The Fed has turned the US dollar into a wrecking ball—and there’s no end in sight to the carnage.”

What’s that, a strong dollar was the wrecking ball? Yes. A too-strong dollar is a problem, and was one of last year’s biggest worries.

October CPI killed that dollar rally, sending it lower ever since, and it might have been commentary on that that caught your brother’s attention. It certainly caught the attention of many bearish analysts, which is funny because they had previously said dollar strength was the problem.

Last November 10, Barron’s reported on why the weakening dollar should bode well for stocks:

“A falling dollar reduces the purchasing power of Americans traveling abroad, but investors are likely cheering the fall. … For one, it means that companies that derive revenue from abroad will see higher profits when they convert sales in international currencies into the greenback. … In the S&P 500, some 30% of company revenue is earned abroad.

“Secondly, if the reaction to inflation data leads to a sustained downward move for the dollar, it could also suggest that investor concerns about the economy are diminishing. Global investors tend to rush to havens like gold and the dollar when their concerns about macroeconomic issues rise.”

Michele, your brother mentioned high US debt as a possible reason for the world to reject the dollar as its reserve currency, but this is another old issue that has yet to matter. Very old, actually.

America’s national debt has been rising my whole life, and I was born in 1971. It’s been called a crisis in the offing ever since I paid attention, starting in the 1980s. So far, so good, and those betting against stocks, the dollar, and America due to the insane level of debt are lovers of long, long odds.

I agree in spirit: the national debt is out of control. I wish responsible politicians controlled the purse strings. But they never have and never will, and sovereign debt, which is to say country debt, is simply not the same as household debt.

It’s a reason people don’t understand it. They think of it like a credit card balance, but it’s not. The country makes the money that’s used to repay the debt. Talk about a key difference!

I covered US federal debt just last Sunday, in this year’s Note 3, when I looked at the debt ceiling debacle on tap, courtesy of House Republicans led by new speaker Kevin McCarthy.

Drawing on data from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED, run by the St. Louis Fed), I reported:

US Federal Debt ($T)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

14.7 in 2011
16.0 in 2012
16.9 in 2013
17.8 in 2014
18.3 in 2015
19.5 in 2016
20.1 in 2017
21.4 in 2018
22.5 in 2019
26.1 in 2020
28.7 in 2021
31.4 in 2022 (Statista estimate)

Yet, in 2021 the US dollar still comprised 60% of global foreign exchange reserves. What happened to it last year? It stayed right around 60%, according to a 9/15/22 report from the Congressional Research Service, “The US Dollar as the World’s Dominant Reserve Currency”.

From that report:

“The dollar has functioned as the world’s dominant reserve currency since World War II. Today, central banks hold about 60% of their foreign exchange reserves in dollars. About half of international trade is invoiced in dollars, and about half of all international loans and global debt securities are denominated in dollars. In foreign exchange markets, where currencies are traded, dollars are involved in nearly 90% of all transactions.

“The dollar is the preferred currency for investors during major economic crises, as a ‘safe haven’ currency. During the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, for example, and amidst the economic turmoil associated with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic in 2020, investors sought US dollars, expecting the dollar to retain its value. In both crises, the US Federal Reserve adopted extraordinary monetary authorities and currency swap lines with other central banks to provide liquidity and dollars.”

There’s just nothing to take the dollar’s place, high federal debt notwithstanding. And you know why? Because other countries are in just as much debt as the US. It’s not a uniquely American situation.

US debt to GDP is about 125%. Japan’s is 225%. Italy’s is 150%. The European Union’s overall debt-to-GDP is 86%. China’s is 80%—at least, but probably higher when we account for its constant lying in reports.

Nikkei Asia reported on 12/7/22, in a story headlined “China’s debt ratio hits record high at 3 times GDP” the following:

“China’s debt as a percentage of its economy hit a fresh high at the end of June, with local authorities borrowing heavily to underpin an economy weighed down by the central government’s zero-COVID policy. …

“The US, China’s main geopolitical rival, saw its debt-to-GDP ratio temporarily top China’s in late 2020 and early 2021.

“But the ratio has since fallen, coming in more than 30 points below China’s at the end of June, amid an economic recovery as well as interest rate hikes that have hit the brakes on borrowing. America’s future growth prospects also look brighter, thanks partly to immigration expanding its population.”

Which brings us full circle back to the main reason we need not worry about this issue:

“The dollar will not lose its reserve currency status, for a simple reason: there’s nothing to take its place.”

That’s been the case since World War II, and it’s still the case.

To recap:

The dollar’s reserve currency status is not threatened. The stability of the Federal Reserve and America’s economic transparency have no peers. High federal debt doesn’t matter because potential rival currencies come from other high-debt places. Dollar weakness relative to other currencies is no problem for stocks, and in fact is usually the preferred condition.

A threat to American finances bigger than the debt is the absurd debt ceiling debacle used by showboating politicians. Another one of these is on the way this year, but is not going to dislodge the dollar from its perch. Debt ceiling games are more of a problem for Treasuries due to questions they raise about the nation’s creditworthiness. All for nothing whatsoever, I hasten to add.

In short, the dollar’s position in global finance is secure. Therefore, it represents no threat to the US economy or stock market.

Michele, please assure your brother that he can disregard this non-risk.

Sources Mentioned:

US Department of the Treasury. Fiscal Service, Federal Debt: Total Public Debt [GFDEBTN], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

The US Dollar as the World’s Dominant Reserve Currency, 15 Sep 2022, Congressional Research Service, PDF

China’s debt ratio hits record high at 3 times GDP, 7 Dec 2022, Nikkei Asia, article

———

If you’re not a Kelly Letter subscriber, why not? I’d like to welcome you!

Please subscribe here.

Posted in Kelly Letter Podcast | Tagged , | Comments closed

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Will ChatGPT Drive a Tech Bull Market?

Will ChatGPT Drive a Tech Bull Market? — Sure it will. It got lazy mega tech off the dime, accelerated corporate computing upgrades, and will keep improving.

Record your investing question at 303-747-4428, or email me.

——

Episode Notes

Note: The following is not a word-for-word transcript. For that, please see the episode on YouTube.

Colin in Chandler, Arizona asked via email whether I think OpenAI’s ChatGPT will drive a tech bull market.

Sure I do. Here’s why:

<> It finally got lazy mega tech off the dime.

The browser plugin is particularly dangerous to Google, et al.

Quote from last Sunday’s Kelly Letter:

“If ChatGPT users can do most of what they want without searching Google or visiting websites, the traditional online revenue model is in deep trouble. Google could lose much of its Search ad business as well as business from clicks on ads it places outside of its properties. For the first time in two decades, it’s possible that ‘online’ will not remain synonymous with Google.

“You know who dislikes this idea? Google.”

<> The need for accelerated computing, data center scaling, new chips, cloud and other AI services.

NVIDIA jumped all over this. From the Generative AI page on its website, you can get a sense for how it’s making more money on the wave of AI hype started by ChatGPT’s launch on November 30:

“Generative AI capabilities are taking the world by storm. AI can now summarize text, compose images, write code, and more. Enterprise applications need AI that’s customized to focus on their domain, be knowledgeable about their business, and have the skills necessary to accomplish high-value tasks. These models need to scale across business functions and learn as the business grows and evolves. Generative AI models will codify your organization’s intelligence.”

<> There’s a long way to go, plenty of room for improvement.

Originality may flatten out, as we’ve already seen in music, movies, and products recommended by algorithm. Algos get into a loop that then detects popularity among products that were in the loop before, and down the spiral we go until it’s nothing but templates everywhere.

Sigal Samuel wrote about this at VOX on Monday that recommendation algos, with their “you liked this, you might like that” approach end up homogenizing our consumption patterns:

“Music starts to sound the same; Hollywood worships reboots and sequels. We all cook the same Epicurious recipes and, more worryingly, read the same articles — which tends to be whatever plays well with the Google algorithm, not what’s been buried at the bottom of the search results.”

Partly this is a case of most people failing to grasp just about anything. How many technologies have we seen offer wonderful promise in concept, and to power users who get them, only to go off the rails once the crowds arrive? Social media springs to mind.

<> Early AI companies may not be the winners.

Just as Netscape did not end up owning the internet, so OpenAI may not end up owning AI.

This is a reason I prefer indexing.

Perusing the YTD performances through the end of last week, we see that general tech rose about 20% in Q1, same as most mega tech stocks and most unleveraged tech funds, and 3x funds rose about 60%.

YTD Price Change (%)
Through 4/6/23
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

85.0 NVDA
79.6 META
50.2 TSLA
26.7 AAPL
22.7 GOOG
21.6 MSFT
21.5 AMZN

61.9 SOXL Semi 3x
61.4 TECL Tech Select 3x
58.6 TQQQ Nasdaq 100 3x
21.8 XNTK NYSE Tech SPDR
19.8 XLK Tech Select SPDR
18.9 FTEC Fidelity MSCI IT

Because it’s hard to know who AI’s winners will be, I recommend using a tech index fund to invest in the technology’s potential. That’s what drives my 9Sig and Income Sig plans.

———

If you’re not a Kelly Letter subscriber, why not? I’d like to welcome you!

Please subscribe here.

Posted in Kelly Letter Podcast | Tagged , | Comments closed

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Is JEPI Too New to Trust?

Is JEPI Too New to Trust? — If JEPI had a decade of data, would you trust it more? Probably not much.

Record your investing question at 303-747-4428.

——

This Episode In Article Form

Data as of 3/3/23

Note: The following is not a word-for-word transcript. For that, please see the episode on YouTube.

Sunil in Jacksonville, Florida had more questions about JEPI, the JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF, which I compared with QYLD and other income ETFs in my February 15 episode.

Summary of Sunil’s voicemail recording:

There’s been a lot of buzz about JEPI. I have two questions:

1. How is it better or worse when compared with other similar ETFs, such as QYLD.

2. It’s new. Do we have enough historical data to trust it?

For the first question, please listen to my February 15 episode, which is all about how JEPI compares with QYLD and other income ETFs. The title of the episode is: “Income ETFs: JEPI vs NUSI, QYLD, RYLD”, thus, exactly what you’re looking for.

A quick recap here is that JEPI is designed to be less volatile than the S&P 500. It’s an actively managed, defensive equity fund that also runs a covered-call operation. It’s supposed to move less than its index. It’s not doing anything wrong when it rises less and falls less than the S&P 500. It’s doing what’s written on its label.

As for my plans, they prefer price movement, i.e. volatility, in their growth and income funds, because they run quarterly rebalancing programs. In such a scheme, lower prices can be useful. In a year like 2022, when everything goes down, there’s minimal benefit. But most years aren’t like 2022, and anybody investing as if they are will learn this the hard way.

They already are. Year-to-date through March 3, JEPI’s price has fallen 0.8% compared with a 4.6% gain for QYLD.

If you’re planning to park money in one of these covered-call ETFs for an extended period, and want to minimize volatility, then JEPI is a good choice. If you’re looking for more aggressive income and don’t mind more volatility or, better yet, are running a plan like my Income Sig that uses volatility in a rebalancing scheme, then QYLD is better.

As for whether we have enough historical data on JEPI to trust it, I think so.

Income ETFs are going through lots of innovation recently, with many new funds trying different techniques. JEPI is among these, writing out-of-the-money S&P 500 Index call options to generate monthly income. There’s nothing particularly exotic about this. It’s more complicated than many investors want to manage on their own, but that’s why it could be worth paying JEPI to do it. Call options are a good way to generate income.

JEPI began operations on 5/20/20. We’re coming up on three years of data, which already show us a reasonable amount of price volatility and 33 straight months of distributions. That’s enough time to see it doing what it’s trying to do, and over a sufficiently volatile time frame.

If JEPI had a decade of data, would you trust it more? Probably not much, because past results are not indicative of future ones. You don’t need all that much of a time frame to see whether a technique is working or not, and it seems that JEPI’s is.

———

If you’re not a Kelly Letter subscriber, why not? I’d like to welcome you!

Please subscribe here.

Posted in Income Sig, Kelly Letter Podcast | Tagged | Comments closed

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Income ETFs: JEPI vs NUSI, QYLD, RYLD

Income ETFs: JEPI vs NUSI, QYLD, RYLD — Each generates income using a covered-call strategy. They pay much more than traditional income funds, but are more volatile. If you’re running the right kind of plan, such volatility can be good. You have to know where the funds fit into your overall portfolio strategy.

Record your investing question at 303-747-4428.

——

This Episode In Article Form

Data as of 2/10/23

Note: The following is not a word-for-word transcript. For that, please see the episode on YouTube.

Ever since I launched my Income Sig plan in January 2022, I’ve received many questions about covered-call ETFs.

My plan uses QYLD, but there are other choices, including JEPI, NUSI, and RYLD. These four, in alphabetical order by symbol, are:

JEPI — JPMorgan Equity Premium Income
NUSI — Nationwide Nasdaq-100 Risk-Managed Income
QYLD — Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call
RYLD — Global X Russell 2000 Covered Call

Each generates income to be distributed to shareholders using a covered-call strategy.

This used to be a technique that could benefit only options traders, but these four ETFs and others like them now offer all investors access to this powerful income-producing method.

These funds write call options on the stocks they own. When they sell these options, they generate a profit. The buyer of the option pays a premium. This profit offsets declines in the assets owned by the ETF, which mitigates losses in falling markets. They can still decline, however, as I’ll cover.

The reason to use these ETFs is to generate income. To assess their relative income-generating power, let’s look at their yields, compared with a good general bond fund, iShares Core US Aggregate Bond (AGG):

12-Mo Yield Comparison (%)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

11.5 JEPI
8.7 NUSI
12.8 QYLD
13.0 RYLD

2.3 AGG

The covered-call ETFs boast excellent yields, which is why one of them is in charge of providing regular monthly income payments in my Income Sig plan. That one is QYLD.

Let’s see just how much income these ETFs provide.

We’ll assume you invested $10,000 in each of them at the closing price on December 30, 2022, the last trading day of last year. Here’s how your portfolio would look, with share amounts rounded down to the nearest whole number:

$10,000 Invested at
12/30/22 Closing Prices
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

183 shares of JEPI @ 54.49
540 shares of NUSI @ 18.50
628 shares of QYLD @ 15.91
531 shares of RYLD @ 18.81

103 shares of AGG @ 96.99

The following is how much each fund paid per share on its most recent payment date:

Most Recent Amount
Paid Per Share ($)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

0.4439 on 2/6/23 from JEPI
0.1239 on 1/27/23 from NUSI
0.1696 on 1/31/23 from QYLD
0.1956 on 1/31/23 from RYLD

0.2453 on 2/7/23 from AGG

Now, let’s see how much income each fund would have distributed to you on its most recent payment date.

To determine this, multiply the number of shares you own by the amount paid per share. Here’s how that went for our hypothetical portfolio of $10,000 invested in each fund at the end of December:

Most Recent Distributions
from Above Positions ($)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

81.23 on 2/6/23 from JEPI
66.91 on 1/27/23 from NUSI
106.51 on 1/31/23 from QYLD
103.86 on 1/31/23 from RYLD

25.27 on 2/7/23 from AGG

It’s obvious in this comparison how much more income these covered-call ETFs deliver over their more traditional bond-fund peers.

The highest payer in the most recent round was QYLD. Its 106.51 was more than 4 times what AGG paid.

Keep in mind, this higher yield isn’t manna from heaven. There’s a cost, a literal one in the sense that these funds charge higher expense ratios than index funds charge, and they’re not as stable as bond funds.

They’re also nothing like bank accounts. Putting $10,000 into QYLD isn’t the same as parking it in a bank savings account paying 13% annual interest. There’s a lot of price change involved.

Before we get into that, consider the different expense ratios of these funds we’ve been considering:

Expense Ratios (Net %)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

0.60 JEPI
0.68 NUSI
0.60 QYLD
0.81 RYLD

0.03 AGG

As ETFs go, these covered-call types are expensive. An investor in QYLD pays 20 times what an investor in AGG pays.

Of course, it’s been well worth it, considering QYLD’s high yield.

High expense ratios do raise the issue of whether it’s worth holding these covered-call ETFs. Investors who care most about expenses are long-term holders. Traders don’t give expenses much thought.

Even over a long term, however, the math of a higher yield more than compensating for a higher expense ratio works.

The bigger question is whether these funds are suitable as long-term holdings. On their own, probably not. In a plan that takes advantage of their price fluctuation, certainly.

For a look at why, consider their 2022 price change:

2022 Price Change (%)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

-8.2 JEPI
-33.7 NUSI
-28.3 QYLD
-22.9 RYLD

-15.0 AGG

It was an unusual year, a bear market across both stocks and bonds that sent even AGG considerably lower. In most years, however, a general bond fund will fluctuate less than these covered-call ETFs.

JEPI’s relatively small decline in 2022 has investors gathering ’round, but be careful not to curve-fit to the last decline. JEPI is unlikely to pay as much as QYLD, for example, and depending on your way of using it the lower volatility might not be desirable.

JEPI is designed to be less volatile than the S&P 500. It’s an actively managed, defensive equity fund that also runs a covered-call operation. It’s supposed to move less than its index. It’s not doing anything wrong when it rises less and falls less than the S&P 500. It’s doing what’s written on its label.

As for my plans, they prefer price movement, i.e. volatility, in their growth and income funds, because they run quarterly rebalancing programs. In such a scheme, lower prices can be useful. In a year like 2022, when everything goes down, there’s minimal benefit. But most years aren’t like 2022, and anybody investing as if they are will learn this the hard way.

They already are. Year-to-date, JEPI’s price has risen only 0.5% compared with 6.8% for QYLD.

If you’re planning to park money in one of these covered-call ETFs for an extended period, and want to minimize volatility, then JEPI is a good choice.

For more aggressive income seekers or anybody running a systematic approach like my Income Sig plan, QYLD is a better choice. Its most recent distribution was 24% higher than JEPI’s most recent, and it grew the investor’s principal by a considerable 6.8% year-to-date compared with a half percent at JEPI.

Costs are a wash across these covered-call ETFs. All of them cost more than index funds, and much more than bond index funds, but they pay far more. Their extra income more than offsets their higher expense ratios.

If you really want to boost your income portfolio, I recommend my Income Sig plan. It’s more volatile than traditional income portfolios, but pays much more over time. Its key tactic is harvesting growth-fund surpluses as income, but that’s a topic for a different episode.

———

If you’re not a Kelly Letter subscriber, why not? I’d like to welcome you!

Please subscribe here.

Posted in Income Sig, Kelly Letter Podcast | Tagged | Comments closed

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Best 3x Leveraged ETFs

Best 3x Leveraged ETFs—TQQQ vs SOXL vs UPRO. All deliver plenty of volatility for traders, but one stands above the others for long-term performance coupled with short-term trading potential—and is perfect for my 9Sig and Income Sig plans.

Record your investing question at 310-734-8889.

——

This Episode In Article Form

Note: The following is not a word-for-word transcript. For that, please see the episode on YouTube.

Since The Kelly Letter launched its 9Sig plan six years ago using ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ) as its stock fund, the ETF has become the most popular 3x vehicle on the market.

According to the ETF Database, TQQQ’s daily average volume is more than 199 million shares. That’s more than the 81 million averaged by the SPDR S&P 500 Trust (SPY), which is the world’s largest ETF by assets, at $357 billion. TQQQ has only $14 billion. Its relatively low assets but enormous volume show that it’s a favorite among traders, not long-term investors.

The way I use it is a hybrid. It’s a key part of two of my long-term plans, one for growth and one for income. The plans abide by a set of rules based on the fund’s quarterly price change, trading it once per quarter depending on where its price went.

If TQQQ declined a lot, then 9Sig buys a lot. If it declined a little, 9Sig buys a little. It works similarly in the opposite direction. If TQQQ rose a lot, then 9Sig sells a lot. If it rose a little, 9Sig sells a little.

This process of reacting to price change works with all stock funds, not just leveraged ones. I use it on iShares Core S&P Small-Cap (IJR), which is a non-leveraged fund, and also on ProShares Ultra MidCap 400 (MVV), which is a 2x leveraged fund.

A question I receive frequently, and did again last week, is this: Would a broader-based 3x fund be safer than TQQQ?

This is in reference to TQQQ magnifying the daily price change of the Nasdaq 100 (NDX), an index that is heavy into technology stocks. Its top five components by weight are Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Amazon (AMZN), Google (GOOG and GOOGL), and NVIDIA (NVDA). Those five stocks alone comprise some 42% of the index. It’s easy to see why the Nasdaq 100 is considered a mega-tech proxy.

Therefore, reason some investors, it’s not as suitable for long time horizons as a broader-based index, such as the S&P 500, which is followed at 3x leverage by ProShares UltraPro S&P 500 (UPRO). Another group suggests that even more focus is needed to really crank up the volatility. For example, a 3x leveraged tech sector fund, such as Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3x Shares (SOXL).

While both UPRO and SOXL would work in my 9Sig plan, TQQQ hits the performance sweet spot. Let’s go through why.

Plenty of Volatility

TQQQ provides plenty of volatility, but some diversification beyond tech, making it less vulnerable to a multi-year single-sector struggle. UPRO isn’t as volatile as TQQQ, making it less useful to a plan driven by higher highs and lower lows, which it exploits in the rules that automate selling and buying such conditions, respectively.

Here’s the price change of the three funds in 2022:

2022 Price Change (%)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

-57.0 UPRO
-79.2 TQQQ
-85.8 SOXL

Some would glance at that and wonder why anybody would ever touch these funds, but if you run a plan that signals buying into such times, those minus signs are not warnings but invitations.

Before moving onto that, notice that all three provide plenty of downside for bargain hunting. Yes, SOXL dove deeper in 2022, but not much deeper than TQQQ and even UPRO went plenty deep enough for bargain hunting. You can see why any of these funds would work in a plan that craves volatility.

Onto why they are good for long-term plans. On top of delivering years like 2022 for packing the stock side of a plan, they deliver rising stretches like the following for harvesting profits:

2019 Through 2021
Price Change (%)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

1,125 SOXL
798 TQQQ
339 UPRO

Now let’s take it all the way back to 2011, the first full calendar year in which all three funds operated. Here’s how they performed from there to the end of 2021:

2011 Through 2021
Price Change (%)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

10,701 TQQQ
8,094 SOXL
2,576 UPRO

These are great tables to show your friends who insist on repeating the canard that leveraged funds don’t work over long time frames.

Try telling that to anybody who bought one of these at the end of 2010 and held it to the end of 2021. SPY’s price change over that time frame came nowhere close: 278%.

The three tables also show why my plans prefer TQQQ. It runs circles around UPRO in the long-term appreciation department, and outperforms SOXL as well. I would characterize it as the most evergreen of the big performers. When stocks head south, it provides a big enough bargain to recharge my 9Sig plan for the next recovery. Maybe not the biggest, but big enough—particularly when combined with its superb long-term return.

I would suggest that the worst choice of these three funds is UPRO. It doesn’t appreciate as much in most time frames, and when it goes through a bear market like the one of 2022, it falls enough to cause despair in anybody who is not comfortable with the way they’re using it. If it’s volatility your plan requires for top performance, then going with higher volatility makes sense.

If you can’t handle a -79% year, you probably can’t handle a -57% one either. A non-leveraged fund or even non-stock fund might be better.

For my 9Sig plan, I’ll stick with TQQQ.

———

If you’re not a Kelly Letter subscriber, why not? I’d like to welcome you!

Please subscribe here.

Posted in 9Sig, Investing Advice, Kelly Letter Podcast | Tagged , , | Comments closed

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/jasonkel/www/www/wp-content/themes/thematic/comments.php on line 51

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/jasonkel/www/www/wp-content/themes/thematic/comments.php on line 52

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Bestselling Financial Author