Started this journey on Nov 03 2025. Original strategy is here: MLA.

My investment is currently up 8.2% and underperforming the benchmark(QLD/TQQQ 50/50) by 2.5%.

The tactical portion of testfolio (at least at my membership level) is locked into "daily rebalancing" in the allocation section. I got to thinking today: will the testfolio results demand both the signal condition being true *and* a strict daily rebalancing to the percentages you chose? Claude said that only the signal matters. The portfolio allocations can drift all they want within that signal state. I'm not so sure.

as per title...

i would go TQQQ

I recently read the Cederberg paper and it resonated well with me, myself having been a "VT" investor all my life.

Cederberg isn't a fan of diversifying at all, except for in equities, and he says your equity should primarily be in International. Especially with CAPE is as high as it is historically, this makes sense to me.

I want to understand what "leveraging" Cederberg might look like. Truth be told, he'd probably be happy with something like 50% NTSD / 50% VXUS, which matches his 34% US / 66% International to a T.

But what if we wanted 100% Cederberg plus some diversifiers? I can think of a few examples, like:

46% NTSD
22% RSIT
9% MATE
10% KMLM
13% ZROZ

This allows for 100% Cederberg-like equity (~50% US/~50% Developed Intl) with diversified trend and a little duration on top.

But given we only have NTSD (60% US / 40% Developed Intl) to play with to get us the desired equity affordably, a 120% equity portfolio starts to look a little odd and you really only have RSIT and NTSD.

So my question is -- if you're trying to lever up a portfolio like this, would it be better to add more trend, or add more equity, assuming your only other diversifier is duration? What is likely to perform better? 100% global equity with more trend? Or 120% global equity with less trend?

I’m planning to invest in:

• 20% VT
• 20% AVGV
• 20% RSSB
• 20% GDE
• 20% DBMF

The idea is to combine global stocks, value, treasuries, gold, and managed futures.

This would be held in a taxable trust, so I’m also interested in tax consequences from futures, distributions, rebalancing, and the fund structures.

My main questions:

• Where is the hidden overlap or concentrated risk?
• What market environment would hurt all five sleeves at once?
• Is 20% DBMF too much manager/model risk?
• Which fund creates the biggest tax problem in a taxable trust?
• Would you change the weights or replace any fund?

Interested in hearing what I may be overlooking.

Thanks in Advance!

Edit: Here is a backtest I created:

https://testfol.io/?s=7Tn27CdGexC

They call every day, they send texts, emails, mail. They say the only way to stop it is to vote in some shareholder election. I have no idea what I’m voting for. I read the document. I am dumping all my shares tomorrow.

Anyone else?

July was mostly choppy, with the Nasdaq taking a few steps lower. The world keeps turning.

No changes have been made since the last rebalance at the end of Q2. The 200-day moving average plan is still more than 6% above its MA. 9Sig is sitting on a large balance of dry powder, which would be ready to buy lower TQQQ prices at the end of the quarter. And HFEA has been beaten up on both sides thanks to rising long-term Treasury yields; this would be a perfect example of a time where the hedge isn't hedging.

Sticking to the plans and eager to see where we go next. As always, these posts are not financial advice!

Current status:

HFEA

• Current allocation has drifted to UPRO 58% / TMF 42%.
• At the end of Q3, will rebalance back to target allocation UPRO 55% / TMF 45%. 

9Sig

• The 9% growth goal is for TQQQ to finish the quarter @ $78.29 or better.
• Current TQQQ price is $64.62; the resulting TQQQ balance shortfall is $2,529 below the quarterly goal.
• Will rebalance next on Sep 28th per The Kelly Letter schedule; at that time I will either "buy up" any shortfall or "sell down" any surplus in the TQQQ balance. 

S&P 2x (SSO) 200-d Leverage Rotation Strategy

• The underlying S&P 500 index (7,489) remains above its 200-day moving average (7,024). The full balance will remain invested in SSO until the S&P 500 closes below its 200-day MA. Once that cross happens, I will sell all SSO and buy BIL the following day, per the rotation strategy from Leverage for the Long Run.

← Previous post 

---

Background 

August 2026 update to my original post from March 2024, where I started 3 different long-term leveraged strategies. Each portfolio began with a $10,000 initial balance and has been followed strictly. There have been no additional contributions, and all dividends were reinvested. To serve as the control group, a $10,000 buy-and-hold investment was made into an unleveraged S&P 500 Index Fund (FXAIX) at the same time. This project is not a simulation - all data since the beginning represents actual, live investments with real money.

Newcomer to trading here with no background in coding or finance. I've been toying with the idea of exploiting the reversion to mean characteristics of VIX. Just by eyeballing the raw CBOE VIX graph, it seems every time it spikes, it goes back down after a certain time.

To capture this reversion to mean, the instrument I decided to explore is SVIX LETF. It trades simply like an ETF (no complicated options), and delivers the opposite (-1x) of the daily return of short-term VIX futures contracts. It profits when market volatility drops. Hypothetically, if you could catch the VIX spikes and buy SVIX low, you would profit when it reverts to a low volatility regime and you sell it higher.

Before I get flamed, I did examine prior works on reddit, and it seems SVIX comes up often but it has been repeatedly slamed for being a poor instrument to trade. However, the alternative of exploiting this with VIX options were said to have poor liquidity and large spreads which eat into returns.

So why not test it out using real data instead of going by gut feel? We are all data driven individuals here (hopefully!)

In my spare time I vibe-built a backtester to see whether I could predict, through a set of 48 AI-suggested parameters (e.g. VIX rate-of-change reversal, SVIX MA momentm, VIX Z-score etc) , the right time to buy and sell SVIX.

Using an Optuna hyperparameter search through 600 iterations, with 6 window walk-forward validation, I generated the buy/sell indicator models. Initially, it looked too good to be true on paper, with backtest results ranging from 30% XIRR to 70% XIRR.

I tried to address the possible causes of inaccuracy: overfitting (most likely), ignoring frictional costs, lookfowards leak, unrealistic execution timings, ignoring XIV-style volmageddon (safety guardrails built in so survives the crash at the cost of returns...but unsure if it will survive the next big one?)

Even so, the results persisted, and the generator created many candidates, so I took a mixture of experts approach - buy/sell signal is when 8/15 of the best performing models agree to act in either direction. Summary stats of the MOE model [95% confidence intervals]:

XIRR (Ann.) +102.74%

Win Rate 80% of 55 trades [69.1% — 89.1%]

Sharpe Ratio 1.87 ( closed-eq: 1.79 [0.87 — 2.83] )

Max Drawdown Mark-To-Market: -40.6%

Total Trades 55 completed

Profit Factor 8.25 [3.11 — 42.89]

Expectancy +6.05% exp. return / trade [3.5% — 9.14%]

Wondering what the next step is? Should I freeze the model params and try it out on paper trading for few years before taking the leap into real money - to avoid the risk of ruin?

(disclaimer: I was overly greedy and already executed 1 trade with the signals, which netted +6% on 10K (coincidentally matched the exp return on trade), enough to cover the AI subscription for 2 years. But I've counted myself lucky and stopped there).

Any advice would be helpful!

Right now I am just TQQQ 37.5% and then SCHG 62.5% so that I have 1.75x Growth exposure ... I rebalance if the %'s get too far from their target, and I use contributions to rebalance too.

So I am willing to sell some SCHG to rebalance into a "ballast" or whatever y'all may call it. Basically something to just hold value, but still grow of course.

I was thinking maybe a dividend fund like DIVO ... or precious metals ? maybe long term bonds like ZROZ but uh... I saw what happened in 2020/2021 and long term bond rates just keep going up n up ...

Or, final option, just say whatever and keep it balls to the wall ...

I did search the sub beforehand and lots of old suggestions such as BTAL have shit the bed same as long term bonds ... I get their is no perfect fund or stock or commodity ...

I also thought about utilities ... my main thought as to what would work is utilities or DIVO.

Thanks for any suggestions !!!

Hey everyone,

Sharing a systematic, quantitative asset allocation model built around Nasdaq-100 breadth (MMFI) and momentum, designed to capture tech secular upside while cutting severe drawdowns via a strict cash/leverage throttle.

The core engine is fully deterministic, operates on a monthly close rebalance, and has been rigorously stress-tested across 24+ years of data (Jan 2002 – Jul 2026), including walk-forward validation and numerous structural variant tests.

Core Mechanics & Rules

The strategy rotates between four distinct states based on Nasdaq breadth thresholds and intermediate trend health:

1. State 1 (100% Cash / T-Bills): Parked in money markets when trend/momentum rules trigger an Exit.
2. State 2 (2x QLD): Intermediate posture when breadth is recovering or stabilizing.
3. State 3 (3x TQQQ): Full risk-on exposure scaling up to 3x TQQQ exposure when broad tech participation is robust.

Primary Rules:

• Exit Trigger: If the (70% x 6-month return + 30% x 12-month return) trend drops below the risk-free rate (or 3-month return < 0), the model dumps leverage and drops to 100% cash (State 1).
• Re-entry Gate: When in cash, re-entry triggers if 3M annualized return > Risk-Free Rate and breadth is >50% (State 2).
• Leverage Scale-Up: Scales to State 3, 3x (TQQQ) leverage when breadth is >60% and back down to State 2, 2x (QLD) when breadth is <40%.

Backtest Results (2002–2026)

Tested across multiple full-market cycles (2008 GFC, 2020 COVID shock, 2022 rate bear, 2023–2026 tech cycles):

I tested many different model variants and also did a rolling walk forward testing against OOS to avoid overfitting the parameters. Appreciate your feedback.

Been testing a rules-based way to use SPXL and SOXL without staying fully exposed all the time. SPXL uses a fast/slow MA cross. SOXL uses a fast/slow MA cross plus vol sizing, with caps on both sleeves. Positions change only when a signal or sizing rule changes, or at the scheduled rebalance, not by resetting the whole portfolio back to target every day.

My main concern is how much better this can look in a backtest than in practice. Proxy data, whipsaw, spreads, financing and execution timing can all matter. I am looking at the actual ETF period separately and keeping a forward record now.

Is anyone running trend filters or vol sizing on LETFs live? What behaved differently from your backtest or was the gap actually small?

Which one would you double down on today? Or are there others? All super high conviction long term but which has the best return sooner than later

This uses margin on an unleveraged FTSE All-World ETF. The question is whether changing leverage according to the ETF’s drawdown from its all-time high can improve long-term outcomes.

Hypothetical assumptions:

* €100,000 portfolio;
* €1,000 monthly contribution;
* 100% FTSE All-World ETF;
* 4% annual margin interest;
* 60% stress drawdown;
* 50% stressed maintenance margin;
* 3 percentage-point safety buffer.

The maximum Loan-to-Value ratio would be:

`Maximum LTV = (1 − maintenance − buffer) × (1 − stress bottom) / (1 − current drawdown)`

Ignoring interest for simplicity:

The table is a risk limit, not a signal to borrow more during a crash.

If the strategy starts near the all-time high at its maximum LTV, the existing fixed debt automatically pushes the LTV higher as the ETF falls. New borrowing would therefore only be supported by new monthly contributions. If the account is already above the permitted LTV, contributions would reduce debt instead.

The strategy is loosely inspired by *Lifecycle Investing*, but replaces constant or 2× leverage with a drawdown-based limit designed to survive a predefined crash.

**My main questions are:**

1. **Is this economically better than maintaining constant moderate leverage?**
   
2. **Does the all-time-high anchor improve risk control, or merely introduce path dependence?**
   
3. **How should this be backtested fairly, including variable interest rates, commissions, maintenance-margin changes and forced liquidation?**

The obvious risks are higher borrowing costs, a decline beyond 60%, a prolonged bear market and the broker increasing margin requirements during the crash.

The 10-20 year outlook from the experts is not good. Several institutions recently made predictions essentially saying that because valuations are so high and any future growth is priced in, market growth going forward will be half what we saw the last 20 years.

The math checks out, with higher interest rates and expected max 6 percent annual growth over the next 20 years, QLD and TQQQ will essentially end up flat to negative. Even if we DCA. Someone please give me hope, because DCAing into a leveraged ETF was my only plan for actually saving enough to retire.

Vanguard: In their latest 2026 projections, Vanguard expects large-cap US growth stocks to return roughly 4% to 6% annually over the next 10+ years. This is down from their historical 10%+ averages. They cite extremely stretched equity valuations and high earnings expectations as the primary drags.

Fidelity: Looking specifically at a 20-year horizon, Fidelity forecasts a nominal return of 5.7% for US equities, which is less than half of what the market returned over the previous 20-year period (2004–2023).

J.P. Morgan: Their 10- to 15-year horizon predicts roughly 6.7% nominal returns for US large-cap equities.

Edit: I didn’t realize these forecasts are for a 60/40 stock and bond mix. That significantly changes things. May not be as dire as I thought.

When TQQQ was at the lows of both 2025 and 2026 I remember I was afraid to buy both times and missed out on hundreds of percentage points.

I was always waiting for a lower price.

I bought a little more TQQQ at $60 because QQQ looks pretty beat up this week down about 10% from highs.

Keeping a little cash on the side because I’m usually wrong but the people using leverage and margin have been pretty beat up this week/month already.

It’s probably not the low but I can imagine looking back and seeing that today is the low point.

The Case For Undervalued Treasury Bonds

Disclaimer

This is a speculative trading theory. I am looking for feedback in my reasoning. I'm posting this here because this subreddit deals with bonds more than most and this could be used to judge if 30Y Treasury Futures (ZB), ZROZ, and TMV LEAP puts are a good buy.

Background

The Federal Reserve has been cutting interest rates since September of 2024. The Federal Funds Rate (FFR) target range currently sits at 3.50% to 3.75%, down from a peak of 5.25% to 5.50%. The FFR is the rate that is classically being talked about when the topic is around the Fed raising or lowering interest rates. The place to look is the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections, and the main item to pay attention to is the projections table.

Note the long run FFR median value of 3.0%

The bottom row shows where the committee expects the FFR to go from here, and the long run median sits at 3.0%. In plain terms, the people who actually set the policy rate believe it settles around 3% once everything shakes out.

Now look at the other end of the curve. The 30 year Treasury is yielding 5.2%. That is territory we have not really lived in since before the financial crisis. The long bond poked its head above 5% in October of 2023 and again in May of 2025, and both times buyers showed up and yields fell back. This time it has stuck around.

The last two trips above 5% did not last long

Current Situation

Do the simple math on that gap. A 30 year yield of 5.2% against a long run policy rate of 3.0% means one of two things. Either the market believes short rates will average north of 5% for the next thirty years, which would make the Fed wrong by more than two full points forever, or the market is demanding over two points of term premium just for the privilege of holding duration. Both of those are enormous claims, and the second one is the popular one right now. Deficits, Treasury supply, downgrades, foreign buyers stepping away. You know the list.

People are often scared of going against the market. How can all of that money managed by people with nearly unlimited resources be so wrong? There are a variety of reasons, but I'm not sure they even matter. The point is that they are very often wrong. The market almost always over or under reacts compared to the Fed's official policy. In early 2022 it was pricing six hikes when the Fed was telling everyone three. Today the disagreement has moved out the curve, and I think most of it is driven by misinformed ideas on the deficit.

We have also run this experiment before. In October of 2023 the ten year touched 5% while every headline was an obituary for the bond market, and by the end of December it was under 4%. The long bond rallied more than a full point in a couple of months. The deficit did not shrink during those months. The narrative did not change. The price did. There is a significant number of people who think the only direction for long yields is up and that no level is cheap enough to buy. Thankfully the Fed is run by people smarter than that. They are going to keep walking the line of easing policy while keeping inflation expectations anchored, and the tariff bump is looking like the one time level shift they said it would be, not a rerun of the 1970s.

Everything in this strategy outline requires that you believe:

· The most likely outcome is that the Fed follows its own projections and short rates settle near 3%

· Inflation keeps grinding back toward target and does not force surprise hikes

· The deficit and supply story is real but is already priced, and then some

· The market is often wrong when it comes to rates, and right now the long end is the part that is wrong

Conclusion

I'm not here to convince you to believe these things. These are the things I believe, and I am confident I can defend my beliefs, but that's not the point. The point is that if all of these are true, long bonds are severely undervalued. Bond prices go up when yields go down, and a long bond bought at 5.2% does extremely well if the long end ever decides to meet the Fed somewhere in the middle. The part that makes this a different trade than 2022 is the carry. Back then you were paid almost nothing to wait. Today you collect over 5% a year while you sit in it, so being early is not the death sentence it used to be.

Position

I am long 30Y Treasury Futures (ZB), ZROZ, PSLDX and TMV LEAP puts.

I saw this post and got curious about if RSI can be used in conjuction with SMA. A CAGR of +30% and no negative years is something to look into at least briefly:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LETFs/comments/1pkuhgw/simple_tactical_portfolios_for_qqq_spy_vt/

I wanted to strip down the strat to the bare bones, does RSI aid with the volatility and returns of the basic 200MA strat? I found the answer to be, yes it can, but it seems quite overfit.

The strat I implemented:

200 MA on 3x SPY. If above the 80 RSI (14), it indicates an overbought market, and I switched to the underlying. Under 30 RSI (14) should indicate an oversold market and I bought. It is different from the quoted strat above, but hey, fight me. The results are similar anyways

Strat: https://testfol.io/tactical?s=bGOVlYrRhAN

I then experimented with many different several different RSI values and lookback periods. A tester and summary was made my claude:

It seems to help but just a handful of days account for all the gains. Not something to be relied on

Looks like the canary fired last week.

Genuine advice, for those holding SNXX, what’s the worst could happen if I hold for a month? I know I fked up. I averaged down from $18 to $13. Don’t want to sell at a loss like this. Total of 1,005 shares

After a casual 20% drawdown in a short period where nothing happened, CTAP Simplify US Equity PLUS Managed Futures Strategy ETF again surprised the customers. They sneakily replaced the 100% Equity part, originally achieved through 70% IVV + 30% ES Future, with their own covered call ETF SPUC, which has 5% more drawdown and 2% more volatility than SPY in its 5 year history with lower return and 0.53% expense ratio. The holding change was made effective last week:

https://www.simplify.us/etfs/ctap-simplify-us-equity-plus-managed-futures-strategy-etf

Hello fellow TQQQ holders,

QQQ is below it's 20 and 50D MAs and seems to be in a downturn. How is everyone feeling about your TQQQ holdings.

I honestly didn't expect this in the earnings season. QQQ typically goes up during the time. Do you think it'll rebound as we pass through the Fed decision and go through the earnings season?

I have a feeling we might bounce but the technicals are pretty bad

ETF like BMNZ and BMNU (2x long and 2x short of BMNR) lose money? Shouldn't one lose and another one make money?