Why not 100% TMF?
Why not 100% TMF?
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... on3_2=-200
Even if you play around with the time periods, its pretty good.
Even if you play around with the time periods, its pretty good.
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Are you aware we have been in a secular declining rates environment for 39 years?
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Your own link shows that at low yields even a 1% rise in rates will have deep negative returns on unlevered long term bonds:
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
I did read the article and it does not claim that leveraged long bonds are a free lunch under all market conditions.
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Anyway, look at how it has done YTD: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion4_3=100
Almost 20% loss and we haven't even see a sustained multi year rising rates environment yet.
Almost 20% loss and we haven't even see a sustained multi year rising rates environment yet.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52211
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Also, I don't want to overstate this, but it's worth noting.
Over the limited period of time TMF has been available, Booogle's "simulated TMF" has not been wildly different from the real TMF. But it hasn't been a high-precision simulation, either. It's been almost 3%/year overoptimistic compared to the real TMF. The real TMF has had both lower return and higher volatility than the simulation.
source
Over the limited period of time TMF has been available, Booogle's "simulated TMF" has not been wildly different from the real TMF. But it hasn't been a high-precision simulation, either. It's been almost 3%/year overoptimistic compared to the real TMF. The real TMF has had both lower return and higher volatility than the simulation.
source
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:39 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Interesting. I wonder if the difference in performance has anything to do with the difference in expense ratios. He simulated TMF with VUSTX, which has an expense ratio of 0.20%. TMF is 5x more expensive, at 1.06%nisiprius wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:36 pm Also, I don't want to overstate this, but it's worth noting.
Over the limited period of time TMF has been available, Booogle's "simulated TMF" has not been wildly different from the real TMF. But it hasn't been a high-precision simulation, either. It's been almost 3%/year overoptimistic compared to the real TMF. The real TMF has had both lower return and higher volatility than the simulation.
source
- typical.investor
- Posts: 5263
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:17 am
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
My $0.02 is:Booogle wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 5:02 pm https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... on3_2=-200
Even if you play around with the time periods, its pretty good.
1) you should consider not only performance over a particular period, but also what you know about the investment vehicle
-and-
2) how performance in the period you are looking at may change
So, I think the answer is 1) the LEFT have the potential to have returns wildly different than the multiple of the index. Just because we haven't seen in this long period of falling rates, it doesn't mean we won't see it in the future. And 2) there is always the possibility that we enter a period of rising rates. Demographics argues against that, but a decoupling of China from the global economic system would likely be inflationary.
In short, nothing about those past returns is set in future stone and due to that risk, one would be better with more reasonable diversification.
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
I put my money on rates continuing their centuries long trend downward. Rates in the 80s and 90s were the blip, not the norm.
At the same time, there's no reason that unforeseen jumps in rates can't happen, or even persist for substantial periods. This scares me from going "all in" on such a bet. Just like people should be scared of going "all in" on 3x the sp500, even though we bet that it will otherwise trend upwards over time.
It's just really hard to make long term concentrated bets. It's possible, but improbable.
At the same time, there's no reason that unforeseen jumps in rates can't happen, or even persist for substantial periods. This scares me from going "all in" on such a bet. Just like people should be scared of going "all in" on 3x the sp500, even though we bet that it will otherwise trend upwards over time.
It's just really hard to make long term concentrated bets. It's possible, but improbable.
“TE OCCIDERE POSSUNT SED TE EDERE NON POSSUNT NEFAS EST"
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
My take away from this often used chart is that the lower the rate the higher the volatility. Usually high volatility is not good for leveraged funds.
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Good lord.
I wrote a full on outraged rant in reply to this and then deleted it in order to avoid a board warning, coz... I'm not exactly sure how many of those we get...
So I leave you with:
Do we understand what diversification means? Do we? Do we, really? Like what is it? What do you think it is? I'll tell you what it's not. It's not 100% anything. It's especially not 100% leveraged anything. It's just not.
Sometimes, you find interesting information. That doesn't mean go 3x all in with it. No. No, no, no, no, no, no. No. Also, no.
I wrote a full on outraged rant in reply to this and then deleted it in order to avoid a board warning, coz... I'm not exactly sure how many of those we get...
So I leave you with:
Do we understand what diversification means? Do we? Do we, really? Like what is it? What do you think it is? I'll tell you what it's not. It's not 100% anything. It's especially not 100% leveraged anything. It's just not.
Sometimes, you find interesting information. That doesn't mean go 3x all in with it. No. No, no, no, no, no, no. No. Also, no.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Exactly.
And it makes perfect sense.
1% of 2% is 50%
1% of 5% is 20%
Just saying "bond convexity" does not logically lead to a 100% TMF portfolio.
That said, I find it impressive how well TMF has held up over long time periods and it may very well be a good trade right now.
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
It's actually 100% RVM Investing. (Rear View Mirror)
30% US Stocks | 30% Int Stocks | 40% Bonds
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Isn't it also interesting that from my YTD link above, TMF has returned 3% less in absolute value this year?nisiprius wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:36 pm Also, I don't want to overstate this, but it's worth noting.
Over the limited period of time TMF has been available, Booogle's "simulated TMF" has not been wildly different from the real TMF. But it hasn't been a high-precision simulation, either. It's been almost 3%/year overoptimistic compared to the real TMF. The real TMF has had both lower return and higher volatility than the simulation.
Almost like the daily reset on this fund is reducing volatility decay??
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
That's partially it. Here are some other factors:Soysauceonrice wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:03 pmInteresting. I wonder if the difference in performance has anything to do with the difference in expense ratios. He simulated TMF with VUSTX, which has an expense ratio of 0.20%. TMF is 5x more expensive, at 1.06%
- This backtest is rebalanced quarterly, whereas TMF is rebalanced daily.
- TMF uses swaps primarily, IIRC, which will have embedded costs. CASHX is the comparison here, but it's certainly not 1:1.
- TMF just isn't a perfect replication of 3x the underlying, even daily. Essentially, it isn't that good at doing what it aims to.
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Can you link to that more precise simulation?DMoogle wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:11 pmThat's partially it. Here are some other factors:Soysauceonrice wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:03 pmInteresting. I wonder if the difference in performance has anything to do with the difference in expense ratios. He simulated TMF with VUSTX, which has an expense ratio of 0.20%. TMF is 5x more expensive, at 1.06%There's a much more legit TMF simulation in the Hedgefundie thread that was pulled from another thread that had a ton of smart minds collaborate on it, but even they weren't able to get a perfect simulation. OP should look at that simulation to see the long-term results of a TMF-like fund.
- This backtest is rebalanced quarterly, whereas TMF is rebalanced daily.
- TMF uses swaps primarily, IIRC, which will have embedded costs. CASHX is the comparison here, but it's certainly not 1:1.
- TMF just isn't a perfect replication of 3x the underlying, even daily. Essentially, it isn't that good at doing what it aims to.
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
If you have a time machine, this is a great strategy. Without it, risky.
This time is the same
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=272007&start=1050#p4426310
Might need to ask some folks for the specific data file if you want it, but the results of the sim are there (scroll down, there are several sections on TMF).
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
What's TMF?
"Happiness Is Not My Companion" - Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren. |
(Avatar is the statue of Gen. Warren atop Little Round Top @ Gettysburg National Military Park.)
- anon_investor
- Posts: 15122
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:43 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
90% VTSAX, 10% TMF would be pretty BHanon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:20 amA triple leveraged 20 year US treasury ETF. Not very BH...
And that you can backtest.
It's gold.
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
OP,
It is very simple.
If you can predict the future, you can go with 100% of anything.
KlangFool
It is very simple.
If you can predict the future, you can go with 100% of anything.
KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
- anon_investor
- Posts: 15122
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:43 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Wouldn't NTSX be easier? I feel like using 90% VTSAX, 10% TMF would require a lot of attentiveness and rebalancing to be effective.
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Yes, but what about all the people who bought equities 10 years before NTSX existed?anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:04 am Wouldn't NTSX be easier? I feel like using 90% VTSAX, 10% TMF would require a lot of attentiveness and rebalancing to be effective.
- anon_investor
- Posts: 15122
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:43 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
TMF has too much leverage for most. Why not buy UPRO instead of VTSAX/VTI? Hedgefundie's excellent adventure.Booogle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:38 amYes, but what about all the people who bought equities 10 years before NTSX existed?anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:04 am Wouldn't NTSX be easier? I feel like using 90% VTSAX, 10% TMF would require a lot of attentiveness and rebalancing to be effective.
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
You can do whatever you want.anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 10:18 amTMF has too much leverage for most. Why not buy UPRO instead of VTSAX/VTI? Hedgefundie's excellent adventure.Booogle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:38 amYes, but what about all the people who bought equities 10 years before NTSX existed?anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:04 am Wouldn't NTSX be easier? I feel like using 90% VTSAX, 10% TMF would require a lot of attentiveness and rebalancing to be effective.
I'm just saying 90% VTSAX, 10% TMF is pretty good.
-
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:00 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
This is definitely my dilemma. I have so much money locked into equities (e.g. >200% gains) that I will likely never rebalance. Adding some TMF would NTSXify them. Unfortunately, the high ER of TMF, volatility decay, and derivative-based counterparty risk have prevented me from using this method of diversify these holdings. If a TMF-like instrument with lower ER and less risk becomes available I will likely use it. (I don't have the spare time to roll futures so I need something easy to use.)Booogle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:38 amYes, but what about all the people who bought equities 10 years before NTSX existed?anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:04 am Wouldn't NTSX be easier? I feel like using 90% VTSAX, 10% TMF would require a lot of attentiveness and rebalancing to be effective.
- anon_investor
- Posts: 15122
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:43 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Why not plain old EDV?prioritarian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:23 pmThis is definitely my dilemma. I have so much money locked into equities (e.g. >200% gains) that I will likely never rebalance. Adding some TMF would NTSXify them. Unfortunately, the high ER of TMF, volatility decay, and derivative-based counterparty risk have prevented me from using this method of diversify these holdings. If a TMF-like instrument with lower ER and less risk becomes available I will likely use it. (I don't have the spare time to roll futures so I need something easy to use.)Booogle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:38 amYes, but what about all the people who bought equities 10 years before NTSX existed?anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:04 am Wouldn't NTSX be easier? I feel like using 90% VTSAX, 10% TMF would require a lot of attentiveness and rebalancing to be effective.
- anon_investor
- Posts: 15122
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:43 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Is the triple leverage really necessary? EDV is pretty effective for a low ER.Booogle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 10:21 amYou can do whatever you want.anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 10:18 amTMF has too much leverage for most. Why not buy UPRO instead of VTSAX/VTI? Hedgefundie's excellent adventure.Booogle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:38 amYes, but what about all the people who bought equities 10 years before NTSX existed?anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:04 am Wouldn't NTSX be easier? I feel like using 90% VTSAX, 10% TMF would require a lot of attentiveness and rebalancing to be effective.
I'm just saying 90% VTSAX, 10% TMF is pretty good.
-
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:00 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
I prefer VGLT in taxable for a variety of reasons but I should probably use EDV. (I've been considering this for some time.)anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:38 pmWhy not plain old EDV?prioritarian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:23 pmThis is definitely my dilemma. I have so much money locked into equities (e.g. >200% gains) that I will likely never rebalance. Adding some TMF would NTSXify them. Unfortunately, the high ER of TMF, volatility decay, and derivative-based counterparty risk have prevented me from using this method of diversify these holdings. If a TMF-like instrument with lower ER and less risk becomes available I will likely use it. (I don't have the spare time to roll futures so I need something easy to use.)Booogle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:38 amYes, but what about all the people who bought equities 10 years before NTSX existed?anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:04 am Wouldn't NTSX be easier? I feel like using 90% VTSAX, 10% TMF would require a lot of attentiveness and rebalancing to be effective.
- anon_investor
- Posts: 15122
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:43 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Both VGLT and EDV are likely going to have capital gain distributions, that is just the nature of longer term bond funds, they have to constantly churn to maintain the long duration.prioritarian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:58 pmI prefer VGLT in taxable for a variety of reasons but I should probably use EDV. (I've been considering this for some time.)anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:38 pmWhy not plain old EDV?prioritarian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:23 pmThis is definitely my dilemma. I have so much money locked into equities (e.g. >200% gains) that I will likely never rebalance. Adding some TMF would NTSXify them. Unfortunately, the high ER of TMF, volatility decay, and derivative-based counterparty risk have prevented me from using this method of diversify these holdings. If a TMF-like instrument with lower ER and less risk becomes available I will likely use it. (I don't have the spare time to roll futures so I need something easy to use.)Booogle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:38 amYes, but what about all the people who bought equities 10 years before NTSX existed?anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:04 am Wouldn't NTSX be easier? I feel like using 90% VTSAX, 10% TMF would require a lot of attentiveness and rebalancing to be effective.
-
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:00 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Yes, EDV has had higher cap gain distributions than VGLT (and is more volatile with only a modest increase in CAGR). I intend to use low cap gains equities in taxable for early retirement income and high cap gains positions for charitable contributions so the "bonds in tax deferred" strategy is not optimal for me.anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:13 pmBoth VGLT and EDV are likely going to have capital gain distributions, that is just the nature of longer term bond funds, they have to constantly churn to maintain the long duration.prioritarian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:58 pmI prefer VGLT in taxable for a variety of reasons but I should probably use EDV. (I've been considering this for some time.)anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:38 pmWhy not plain old EDV?prioritarian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:23 pmThis is definitely my dilemma. I have so much money locked into equities (e.g. >200% gains) that I will likely never rebalance. Adding some TMF would NTSXify them. Unfortunately, the high ER of TMF, volatility decay, and derivative-based counterparty risk have prevented me from using this method of diversify these holdings. If a TMF-like instrument with lower ER and less risk becomes available I will likely use it. (I don't have the spare time to roll futures so I need something easy to use.)
- anon_investor
- Posts: 15122
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:43 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
I had some EDV in spring 2020, used it more as equity crash insurance, and it worked. I sold all of it and bought a bunch of equities in March 2020. But I wouldn't buy it now, since the coupon is only around 2% now. Instead I have been buying I Bonds last year and this year and will buy more in 2022.prioritarian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:25 pmYes, EDV has had higher cap gain distributions than VGLT (and is more volatile with only a modest increase in CAGR). I intend to use low cap gains equities in taxable for early retirement income and high cap gains positions for charitable contributions so the "bonds in tax deferred" strategy is not optimal for me.anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:13 pmBoth VGLT and EDV are likely going to have capital gain distributions, that is just the nature of longer term bond funds, they have to constantly churn to maintain the long duration.prioritarian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:58 pmI prefer VGLT in taxable for a variety of reasons but I should probably use EDV. (I've been considering this for some time.)anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:38 pmWhy not plain old EDV?prioritarian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:23 pm
This is definitely my dilemma. I have so much money locked into equities (e.g. >200% gains) that I will likely never rebalance. Adding some TMF would NTSXify them. Unfortunately, the high ER of TMF, volatility decay, and derivative-based counterparty risk have prevented me from using this method of diversify these holdings. If a TMF-like instrument with lower ER and less risk becomes available I will likely use it. (I don't have the spare time to roll futures so I need something easy to use.)
- zaboomafoozarg
- Posts: 2431
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:34 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
So I was searching for TMF and happened upon this post.
I was also intrigued by TMF in the past, but now in the past 7 months since this was posted it has dropped 58%.
This makes BND's 12% drop in that time period feel like a walk in the park.
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Why did you end the time period at 2021 in your posting? Could this be the reason?Booogle wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 5:02 pm https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... on3_2=-200
Even if you play around with the time periods, its pretty good.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... on3_2=-200
Using the max number of years in PV, the S&P 500 had a higher return with much lower volatility and a significantly lower max drawdown:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... on3_2=-200
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Well, I'm not sure about this, but hear me out...Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:30 pm
Why did you end the time period at 2021 in your posting?
The original post is from 2021.
I'm glad someone dug up this thread though because I missed this madness.
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Well, gosh, without a crystal ball I guess it just doesn’t work!Corvidae wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:13 pmWell, I'm not sure about this, but hear me out...Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:30 pm
Why did you end the time period at 2021 in your posting?
The original post is from 2021. :)
I'm glad someone dug up this thread though because I missed this madness.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52211
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Green: long-term Treasury bonds.
Yellow: intermediate-term Treasury... notes.
Red: Treasury bills, which can also be taken as a proxy for "cash" (in an interest-earning account)
Years and years and years ago, I stared at the inflation-adjusted cumulative real growth charts for the SBBI data for intermediate-term and long-term government bonds, and concluded that any big commitment to long-term bonds was simply unsuitable unless you had known future dollar liabilities you could match with individual long-term bonds.
From 1913 to the present, there have been four episodes of high inflation (my own judgement, I don't know if there's any NBER-like institution that scores "inflation"), so that's an average of one every 27 years. That tells us that it is prudent to assume there's a good chance of encountering one in one's investing-and-retirement lifetime.
There are, indeed, two completely different philosophies on the way bonds can function in a portfolio.
The boring, but robust way is to treat them as not all that different from cash, but with a combination meaningfully higher expected return, and a hardly noticeable higher risk if it is in a portfolio together with stocks. To just buy and hold them, get the coupon interest and money back at maturity. With low correlation just meaning the small amount added risk is a bit smaller than you might expect. That calls for intermediate-term bonds.
The sophisticated, but fragile way is to hold them, not for their basic features of interest and return of principal, but as a fluctuating asset that you hold because you want the volatility... because you have some kind of prediction or expectation of negative correlation with stocks, or negative correlation under market conditions you expect to persist, or negative correlation provided the Fed does what you expect them to do. That calls for long-term bonds, maybe zero coupon, maybe leveraged.
But in any case it calls for holding them in a financially-engineered combination together with stocks. Not 100% bonds.
Last edited by nisiprius on Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
- Cheez-It Guy
- Posts: 4007
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:20 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Why not 100% TSLA in 2019?
Dang, I'm a genius!
Dang, I'm a genius!
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Probably use TYA https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/bats/tya/quote to simulate the futures. I used to roll futures but got out of that a few years ago, but haven't started using EDV or TYA or anything like that yet since I have a fair amount in cash due to requiring it for some other activities.prioritarian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:23 pmThis is definitely my dilemma. I have so much money locked into equities (e.g. >200% gains) that I will likely never rebalance. Adding some TMF would NTSXify them. Unfortunately, the high ER of TMF, volatility decay, and derivative-based counterparty risk have prevented me from using this method of diversify these holdings. If a TMF-like instrument with lower ER and less risk becomes available I will likely use it. (I don't have the spare time to roll futures so I need something easy to use.)Booogle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:38 amYes, but what about all the people who bought equities 10 years before NTSX existed?anon_investor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:04 am Wouldn't NTSX be easier? I feel like using 90% VTSAX, 10% TMF would require a lot of attentiveness and rebalancing to be effective.
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Time machine is better in this case. I had forgotten this thread occurred. It seems it was beautifully timed.Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 11:31 pmWell, gosh, without a crystal ball I guess it just doesn’t work!Corvidae wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:13 pmWell, I'm not sure about this, but hear me out...Northern Flicker wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:30 pm
Why did you end the time period at 2021 in your posting?
The original post is from 2021.
I'm glad someone dug up this thread though because I missed this madness.
This time is the same
-
- Posts: 3565
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:42 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
The fate of TMF points out the flaws of using backtesting as a reliable guide to the future. Backtesting leveraged LTTs from 1982 to 2020 looked like a sure bet for massively outsized risk adjusted returns. LTTs had incredible returns with no risk for 38 years, why not leverage it up? Instead the last 2 years produced a total disaster for TMF with losses of 75%+ in principal value. That is enough to answer the question: Why not 100% TMF?
Looking at where LTT yields were in 2020, the disaster that followed should not have been a surprise. We were in a Treasury bubble in 2020, historically lowest nominal yields for 13 years. That is precisely the worst time to buy, let alone leverage, Treasuries especially LTT. LTT had done so well for so long that, for those who put their faith in backtesting, 3X leverage looked like the optimal route to maximize those easy risk-free gains. In general get rich quicker schemes carry exceptionally high risk, like ARKK, TMF, and BTC. They can be big winners short term but only rarely does massive outperformance last long term.
Backtesting works until it doesn't. Both market sentiment and the underlying macroeconomy can change drastically and quickly from what it has been like for prior decades in which case backtesting can be a joke. That's what happened this time with TMF.
Garland Whizzer
Looking at where LTT yields were in 2020, the disaster that followed should not have been a surprise. We were in a Treasury bubble in 2020, historically lowest nominal yields for 13 years. That is precisely the worst time to buy, let alone leverage, Treasuries especially LTT. LTT had done so well for so long that, for those who put their faith in backtesting, 3X leverage looked like the optimal route to maximize those easy risk-free gains. In general get rich quicker schemes carry exceptionally high risk, like ARKK, TMF, and BTC. They can be big winners short term but only rarely does massive outperformance last long term.
Backtesting works until it doesn't. Both market sentiment and the underlying macroeconomy can change drastically and quickly from what it has been like for prior decades in which case backtesting can be a joke. That's what happened this time with TMF.
Garland Whizzer
-
- Posts: 1574
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:40 pm
- Location: Land of Hypoxia
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
"In general get rich quicker schemes carry exceptionally high risk, like ARKK, TMF, and BTC. They can be big winners short term but only rarely does massive outperformance last long term."
WELL SAID! There really isn't a easy route to beating the SPY or VTI long term....although the ONE instance where "massive outperformance" did last was in TMF/TYD/EDV for past decade plus based on the 40 year bull in LTT.
QUESTION: Is there a point where TMF goes so low that the risk reward proposition returns? I'd say perhaps at the end of this year. Also, anytime the 10 year treasury hits about 3.5% or higher, I'd say good chance that wont last.
WHY? Because US govt cannot pay its debt service at that high of an interest rate and not erode the value of the USD. Thoughts?
WELL SAID! There really isn't a easy route to beating the SPY or VTI long term....although the ONE instance where "massive outperformance" did last was in TMF/TYD/EDV for past decade plus based on the 40 year bull in LTT.
QUESTION: Is there a point where TMF goes so low that the risk reward proposition returns? I'd say perhaps at the end of this year. Also, anytime the 10 year treasury hits about 3.5% or higher, I'd say good chance that wont last.
WHY? Because US govt cannot pay its debt service at that high of an interest rate and not erode the value of the USD. Thoughts?
-
- Posts: 5735
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2022 12:42 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
I always point to this graph whenever people bring up how big the US debt has gotten (usually they are complaining that it's 120% of GDP, but this is the same question really.)moontower wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:13 pm QUESTION: Is there a point where TMF goes so low that the risk reward proposition returns? I'd say perhaps at the end of this year. Also, anytime the 10 year treasury hits about 3.5% or higher, I'd say good chance that wont last.
WHY? Because US govt cannot pay its debt service at that high of an interest rate and not erode the value of the USD. Thoughts?
-
- Posts: 15363
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
TMV had nearly a 99% drawdown through the end of 2021.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion1_1=100
-
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:27 pm
Re: Why not 100% TMF?
Now is the time to go all in on $TMF $TLT?