Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

BlueHorseshoe

Bespoke Leverage

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I was wondering whether anyone who has a wider knowledge of the derivatives universe than I do could suggest any instrument that offers a moderate amount of leverage?

 

As far as I am aware there is a complete jump from the x3 ETFs to the Futures that are 50:1. The ETFs are obviously geared towards Buy-and-Hold, and the Futures towards very short term traders with smaller accounts or longer term traders with lots of capital.

 

Is there anything in the gap between these?

 

Thanks,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because the leverage is there does not mean you have to use it, hence anything with 50 to 1 means that its just the maximum.

It is up to you to have determine what leverage you want 'in between' and while providers may offer instruments, I dont know if there is much of a market for them to be offering too many varying structures/products just because.....

Plus dont forget the various futures leverage does change depending on volatility and exchange margins.

Brokers also may offer various leverage in different accounts - sometimes they offer portfolio accounts with more leverage based on offsetting positions (one long one short) or simply cash accounts that need to be fully funded.

Basically - there are already enough options available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SIUYA said:
Just because the leverage is there does not mean you have to use it, hence anything with 50 to 1 means that its just the maximum.

It is up to you to have determine what leverage you want 'in between' and while providers may offer instruments, I dont know if there is much of a market for them to be offering too many varying structures/products just because.....

Plus dont forget the various futures leverage does change depending on volatility and exchange margins.

Brokers also may offer various leverage in different accounts - sometimes they offer portfolio accounts with more leverage based on offsetting positions (one long one short) or simply cash accounts that need to be fully funded.

Basically - there are already enough options available.

 

Hi SIUYA,

 

Thanks for your reply. I'm confused . . . :confused:

 

I understand that you don't have to use the leverage, but trading an ES contract with a $12.5 tick value means that (as I write) you'd need about $76,000 in the account not to require any leverage. A single share of the SPY ETF (also un-leveraged) is currently about $152. What lies between the two in terms of borrowed funding, anything?

 

Or to put it another way, if my worst drawdown using a 3:1 ETF is 15% and I'm happy to weather a 30% drawdown, how can I get 6:1 leverage? To get that on a single ES contract requires $13,000 deposited, but if I want to hold a portfolio of 10 similar instruments then that's $130,000 - a bit more than I can afford!

 

Any suggestions are much appreciated.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe i am confused.

 

For the ES - if no leverage is requiring $76,000 in an account BUT you only have to have (I dont trade the ES so i am guessing at $5000).... $5000 per contract so you can have a wide range of leverage options if you have the full $76,000 (between 1 to 76/5=15 contracts)

So you can have anywhere between 1-15 times in this example here.

If you want 6 times, then deposit only $35000 to trade 6 contracts, and leave the rest in a separate bank account maybe?

 

For your example of getting 6:1 from a 3:1 instrument - well either a broker allows you to buy on margin, OR you borrow twice as much externally and deposit twice the amount more money. No different - look at total exposure.

 

If you are then talking about holding 10 similar instruments well then you will effectively be holding 10 times 1 instrument. Thats a lot of leverage - some brokers offer portfolio margin accounts that use offsets, but even then they still usually dont offer too much leverage - they have limits. A 30% drawdown if you are leveraged three times will see your account pretty much gone!

I reckon you are correct that one way of viewing it is how much can you borrow separate to the broker - this is not the easiest way, but a way of looking at it.

 

Whats to stop you borrowing 100k against a house that worth 500k with house equity of 400k then leveraging that up 10 times and trading like you have 1 mil....do you have 10 times leverage, or not???

or do you only have 400k leveraged to 1mil.

With 100k in an account you can probably manage to control that pretty easily. Make 10% a year on a mil, but its 100k on the account - sell that to someone!

 

(I am conservative and look at over all exposure - not just how many contracts can I trade, but everyone is different)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SIUYA said:
maybe i am confused.

 

For the ES - if no leverage is requiring $76,000 in an account BUT you only have to have (I dont trade the ES so i am guessing at $5000).... $5000 per contract so you can have a wide range of leverage options if you have the full $76,000 (between 1 to 76/5=15 contracts)

So you can have anywhere between 1-15 times in this example here.

If you want 6 times, then deposit only $35000 to trade 6 contracts, and leave the rest in a separate bank account maybe?

 

For your example of getting 6:1 from a 3:1 instrument - well either a broker allows you to buy on margin, OR you borrow twice as much externally and deposit twice the amount more money. No different - look at total exposure.

 

If you are then talking about holding 10 similar instruments well then you will effectively be holding 10 times 1 instrument. Thats a lot of leverage - some brokers offer portfolio margin accounts that use offsets, but even then they still usually dont offer too much leverage - they have limits. A 30% drawdown if you are leveraged three times will see your account pretty much gone!

I reckon you are correct that one way of viewing it is how much can you borrow separate to the broker - this is not the easiest way, but a way of looking at it.

 

Whats to stop you borrowing 100k against a house that worth 500k with house equity of 400k then leveraging that up 10 times and trading like you have 1 mil....do you have 10 times leverage, or not???

or do you only have 400k leveraged to 1mil.

With 100k in an account you can probably manage to control that pretty easily. Make 10% a year on a mil, but its 100k on the account - sell that to someone!

 

(I am conservative and look at over all exposure - not just how many contracts can I trade, but everyone is different)

 

Hi SIUYA,

 

I think that's pretty much the answer I was expecting, but it's useful to compare my understanding - leverage is the sort of "boring" thing that books like to skip over.

 

I've been looking at a long-only trend-following type strategy with ETFs that ought to be suitable for a retirement account. The average yearly return in testing is about 8% but the drawdowns are relatively small (and unlike a stock, I can't see an ETF tracking all commodities or world real estate etc falling to zero), so I was wondering whether it is possible to get more juice out of it with a little leverage. But clearly the increased return is going to be hit by the cost of borrowing (wherever that's from).

 

Thanks for your help!

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  BlueHorseshoe said:
Hi SIUYA,

 

I think that's pretty much the answer I was expecting, but it's useful to compare my understanding - leverage is the sort of "boring" thing that books like to skip over.

 

I've been looking at a long-only trend-following type strategy with ETFs that ought to be suitable for a retirement account. The average yearly return in testing is about 8% but the drawdowns are relatively small (and unlike a stock, I can't see an ETF tracking all commodities or world real estate etc falling to zero), so I was wondering whether it is possible to get more juice out of it with a little leverage. But clearly the increased return is going to be hit by the cost of borrowing (wherever that's from).

 

Thanks for your help!

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

The other great miss use of leverage is in quoting returns as well - today i made 500% - tomorrow I lost the lot!

Its boring and skipped over because often its a tough one to explain to people as everyone has their idea about what is safe, whats not, what is leverage, what not.....try telling people how to use lots of leverage using options with little exposure these days - they think you are selling sub prime, even if you are not.

 

The only book I know of that will help you do exactly what you are describing is this one

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Practical-Guide-ETF-Trading-Systems/dp/1906659273

 

(There may be others) I have not read this but have seen enough reviews from people who I know trade like this that it has some relevant information to be worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SIUYA said:
The other great miss use of leverage is in quoting returns as well - today i made 500% - tomorrow I lost the lot!

Its boring and skipped over because often its a tough one to explain to people as everyone has their idea about what is safe, whats not, what is leverage, what not.....try telling people how to use lots of leverage using options with little exposure these days - they think you are selling sub prime, even if you are not.

 

The only book I know of that will help you do exactly what you are describing is this one

A Practical Guide to ETF Trading Systems: A systematic approach to trading exchange-traded funds: Amazon.co.uk: Anthony Garner: Books

 

(There may be others) I have not read this but have seen enough reviews from people who I know trade like this that it has some relevant information to be worthwhile.

 

 

 

Thanks for the recommendation - that looks good! Amazon are listing it alongside the Ivy Portfolio which is one of the other good books I've read on this topic.

 

Cheers!

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  BlueHorseshoe said:
Hi,

 

I was wondering whether anyone who has a wider knowledge of the derivatives universe than I do could suggest any instrument that offers a moderate amount of leverage?

 

As far as I am aware there is a complete jump from the x3 ETFs to the Futures that are 50:1. The ETFs are obviously geared towards Buy-and-Hold, and the Futures towards very short term traders with smaller accounts or longer term traders with lots of capital.

 

Is there anything in the gap between these?

 

Thanks,

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

The more is supposed period of holding the asset (and the more is amount of investment) the less is leverage. Standard rule of investment game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  fxeconomist said:
The more is supposed period of holding the asset (and the more is amount of investment) the less is leverage. Standard rule of investment game.

 

I guess investing in any avenue is always associated with certain risks so it is good to understand those risks while investing in any where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.