3 ms·
I respect your position and certainly there is risk, but the intraday risk is not significantly greater than leveraging the index itself. For one, no complex de
by Kranar 5y ago
I respect your position and certainly there is risk, but the intraday risk is not significantly greater than leveraging the index itself. For one, no complex derivatives are being used, you can see the exact summary of every asset held by the ETF here:
https://accounts.profunds.com/etfdata/ByFund/TQQQ-psdlyhld.csv https://accounts.profunds.com/etfdata/ByFund/TQQQ-psdlyhld.c...
They consist of the securities themselves, futures contracts, treasury bills, and index swaps. None of these are considered remotely complex or out of the ordinary and the only security that has any real counterparty risk are the index swaps.
So yes, if Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan, or one of the other nine institutions listed in the above linked document fail in such a way that no other institution bails them out, then TQQQ's price will fall greater than 3x index it's tracking.
I won't argue those institutions can not fail, but that's the case when you invest, you assume the risk that what you invest in will fail.
The greatest risk of investing in TQQQ is not the counterparty risk or that the fundamental mechanism behind index swaps will break down, that's a risk but it's much less likely than the elephant in the room... being leveraged in an investment during a stock market crash.
- initplus 5y agoYou say the swaps are the only component that has meaningful counterparty risk, it is worth noting that the swaps dwarf the other TQQQ holdings over 7:1.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Kranar 5y agoBut that's not true and wouldn't even make sense. I literally link to the CSV file detailing every single holding they have down to the dollar. You can open it up in Excel/Google Sheets and immediately tally up the values. The swaps add up to 39325783771 and the other holdings add up to 25311807166. Even if you add in the futures contracts (NQZ1) you're still only at approximately 2:1 which is within the ballpark of what one would expect from a triple leveraged instrument. I'm not sure how you got 7:1 but given that all of the numbers are right there, you are welcome to provide your calculations.
- initplus 5y agoAh sorry that's my bad, honestly misread the last row as a total when it's actually just "NET OTHER ASSETS / CASH".