• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Optimized Portfolio

Investing and Personal Finance

  • Start Here
  • Investing 101
    • Beginners Start Here – 10 Steps To Start Building Wealth
    • What Is the Stock Market? How It Works & How to Invest in It
    • How To Invest in an Index Fund – The Best Index Funds
    • Portfolio Asset Allocation by Age
    • How To Invest Your Emergency Fund
    • Portfolio Diversification – How To Diversify Your Portfolio
    • Dollar Cost Averaging vs. Lump Sum Investing (DCA vs. LSI)
    • How To Invest Your HSA (Health Savings Account)
    • Factor Investing and Factor ETFs – The Ultimate Guide
    • more…
  • Lazy Portfolios
    • All Weather Portfolio
    • Bogleheads 3 Fund Portfolio
    • HEDGEFUNDIE’s Excellent Adventure
    • Warren Buffett Portfolio
    • Golden Butterfly Portfolio
    • Paul Merriman Ultimate Buy and Hold Portfolio
    • Ben Felix Model Portfolio
    • Permanent Portfolio
    • David Swensen Portfolio
    • 60/40 Portfolio
    • more…
  • Funds
    • VOO vs. VTI – Vanguard S&P 500 or Total Stock Market ETF?
    • The 7 Best International ETFs
    • The 8 Best Small Cap ETFs (4 From Vanguard)
    • The 5 Best REIT ETFs
    • The 5 Best EV ETFs – Electric Vehicles ETFs
    • VIG vs. VYM – Comparing Vanguard’s 2 Popular Dividend ETF’s
    • The Best Vanguard Dividend Funds – 4 Popular ETFs
    • The 5 Best Tech ETFs
    • The 7 Best Small Cap Value ETFs
    • The 6 Best ETFs for Taxable Accounts
    • The 5 Best Emerging Markets ETFs (1 From Vanguard) for 2023
    • more…
  • Leverage
    • What Is a Leveraged ETF and How Do They Work?
    • How To Beat the Market Using Leverage and Index Investing
    • The 9 Best Leveraged ETFs
    • Hedgefundie’s Excellent Adventure
    • Leveraged All Weather Portfolio
    • Leveraged Permanent Portfolio
    • Leveraged Golden Butterfly Portfolio
    • NTSX – Review and Summary
    • TQQQ – Is It A Good Investment?
    • PSLDX – A Review
    • SWAN – A Review
    • RPAR Risk Parity ETF Review
    • more…
  • Dividends
    • The Best M1 Finance Dividend Pie
    • The 11 Best Dividend ETFs
    • The Best Vanguard Dividend Funds – 4 Popular ETFs
    • VIG vs. VYM – Comparing Vanguard’s 2 Popular Dividend ETF’s
    • 8 Reasons Why I’m Not a Dividend Income Investor
    • QYLD – A Harsh Review
    • more…
  • Brokers
    • The 5 Best Stock Brokers
    • The 4 Best Investing Apps
    • M1 Finance Review
    • Brokers with the Lowest Margin Rates
    • M1 Finance vs. Fidelity
    • M1 Finance vs. Vanguard
    • Webull vs. Robinhood
    • Stash vs. Robinhood
    • M1 Borrow Review (How M1’s Margin Loan Works)
    • more…
  • Retirement
    • The 10 Best ETFs for Retirement Portfolios in 2023
    • The 4% Rule for Retirement Withdrawal Rate – A Revisitation
    • Sequence of Return Risk in Retirement Explained
    • Traditional IRA Explained
    • Roth IRA Explained
    • 401k vs. Roth IRA
    • Roth IRA vs. Traditional IRA
    • Backdoor Roth IRA Explained
    • more…
  • My Toolbox

HEDGEFUNDIE’s Excellent Adventure (UPRO/TMF) – A Summary

Last Updated: January 30, 2023 216 Comments – 14 min. read

Here we dive into the famous “Excellent Adventure” from Hedgefundie and how to implement it.

Interested in more Lazy Portfolios? See the full list here.

Disclosure:  Some of the links on this page are referral links. At no additional cost to you, if you choose to make a purchase or sign up for a service after clicking through those links, I may receive a small commission. This allows me to continue producing high-quality, ad-free content on this site and pays for the occasional cup of coffee. I have first-hand experience with every product or service I recommend, and I recommend them because I genuinely believe they are useful, not because of the commission I get if you decide to purchase through my links. Read more here.

In a hurry? Here are the highlights:

  • Hedgefundie is was a member of the Bogleheads forum.
  • Hedgefundie created a thread in February 2019 proposing a 3x leveraged ETF investing strategy based on risk parity using the S&P 500 index (UPRO) and long-term treasury bonds (TMF) held in a 40/60 allocation. The thread later expanded into a Part 2.
  • Hedgefundie later updated the strategy’s asset allocation in August 2019 to 55/45 UPRO/TMF.
  • Extensive backtesting, discussion, and analysis within the thread by members of the Bogleheads forum supports the validity and potential market outperformance of the strategy.
  • The proposed strategy calls for quarterly rebalancing.
  • Several different protocols/variations of the strategy emerged in the Excellent Adventure thread, including monthly rebalancing, rebalancing bands, and volatility targeting with various lookback periods.
  • Some users have added a dash of TQQQ (3x the NASDAQ 100 index) for a minor tech tilt, as Big Tech has had a stellar run recently.
  • It is recommended to implement the strategy within a Roth IRA on M1 Finance, to avoid tax implications and to make regular rebalancing seamless and easy.

Disclaimer:  While I love diving into investing-related data and playing around with backtests, I am in no way a certified expert. I have no formal financial education. I am not a financial advisor, portfolio manager, or accountant. This is not financial advice, investing advice, or tax advice. The information on this website is for informational and recreational purposes only. Investment products discussed (ETFs, mutual funds, etc.) are for illustrative purposes only. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or otherwise transact in any of the products mentioned. Do your own due diligence. Past performance does not guarantee future returns. Read my lengthier disclaimer here.


Contents

  • Video
  • Who Is Hedgefundie?
  • What Is the Hedgefundie Strategy?
  • UPRO vs. TQQQ
  • Why Not 100% UPRO?
  • My Hedgefundie Adventure Performance
  • Alternative Options To the Hedgefundie Portfolio
  • Addressing Concerns Over Long-Term Treasury Bonds
  • Reducing Volatility and Drawdowns and Hedging Against Inflation and Rising Rates
  • The Hedgefundie Portfolio ETF Pie for M1 Finance (UPRO/TMF)

Video

Prefer video? Watch it here:

Who Is Hedgefundie?

Hedgefundie is was a member of the Bogleheads forum who created a now-famous thread on the forum proposing a 3x leveraged ETF strategy.

What Is the Hedgefundie Strategy?

The Hedgefundie strategy – the wild ride of which is known as “Hedgefundie’s Excellent Adventure” – is based on a risk parity allocation of leveraged stocks (3x the S&P 500 index via UPRO) and leveraged long-term treasury bonds (3x the ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index via TMF). Note that “HFEA” is the shorthand initialism for the name of the strategy, not the ticker for a fund.

Risk parity is a portfolio allocation strategy in which, consistent with Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), risk is spread evenly among assets within the portfolio by looking at the volatility contributed by each asset, thereby attempting to optimize returns per unit of risk (Sharpe). I explained it more here. Parity between stocks and long treasuries is roughly achieved at 40/60.

The Hedgefundie strategy relies heavily on the negative correlation (or at least, uncorrelation) between stocks and long-term treasury bonds, wherein the bonds provide a buffer during stock drawdowns. Long-term treasuries are chosen precisely because they are more volatile than shorter-duration bonds and because of their degree of negative correlation to stocks, in order to sufficiently counteract the downward movement of a 3x leveraged stocks position in a crash. I delved into these specific benefits of treasury bonds here. This concept is based on the simple historical principle of improving risk-adjusted return (Sharpe) over long periods by holding uncorrelated assets, such as a traditional 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, as opposed to 100% stocks. In a nutshell, this is a way to hold UPRO long term in a much more sensible way.

Consistent with the idea of Lifecycle Investing, this heavily-leveraged strategy is better suited for young investors with a long time horizon who can afford to be risky early in their investment horizon. Hedgefundie advocates for treating this strategy like a “lottery ticket” and not using it with a significant portion of your total portfolio value.

Critics and naysayers reflexively exclaim the oft-cited, overblown, platitudinous “Leveraged ETF’s aren’t meant to be held long-term because of volatility decay,” but, in short, that doesn’t concern me. Moreover, that same volatility decay can actually help when upward movement with positive momentum is occurring. I would also argue that as long as you can stomach the volatility, a major drop should [eventually] be followed by a major rebound; 3x hurts on the way down but helps on the way up. UPRO from ProShares and TMF from Direxion were chosen due to their low tracking error and high volume; again, we’re getting 300% exposure to the S&P 500 and long-term treasury bonds, respectively.

The proposed strategy calls for quarterly rebalancing. Several different protocols/variations of the strategy emerged as the Excellent Adventure thread progressed, including monthly rebalancing, rebalancing using bands, and volatility targeting with various lookback periods. I’d keep it simple and avoid checking it often; I can see it being very easy to get emotional with this strategy and abandon your plan. It is recommended to implement the strategy within a Roth IRA on M1 Finance, to avoid tax implications and to make regular rebalancing seamless and easy.

I know this sounds saIes pitchy, but if you’re wanting to use this strategy in a taxable account, I would argue it makes even more sense to use M1 Finance because if you’re choosing to put in new deposits, the system will automatically rebalance the portfolio for you by directing new deposits to buy the underweight asset, thereby allowing you to avoid capital gains taxes that would otherwise be incurred with a manual rebalance. This is more impactful than it might sound at first. These are 3x leveraged ETFs; they can very quickly get out of balance. For example, let’s say you start out at the prescribed 55/45 and stocks take off and bonds suffer, which causes it to stray to 75/25 after only a month. Not good. At this point you’d have to incur short term capital gains taxes (ouch!) just to get things back in balance. Granted, at a certain point, your new deposits may not be sufficiently large enough to provide the full rebalancing effect on their own, but that would be a great problem to have.

Utilizing a traditional, unleveraged 40/60 stocks/bonds portfolio, compared to an all-equities portfolio, has relatively low volatility and should produce higher risk-adjusted return (Sharpe) over long time periods, but would also likely underperform an all-equities portfolio in terms of total return. The solution, Hedgefundie maintains, is applying leverage. We’re attempting to accept a risk profile similar to that of the S&P 500, but with much higher expected returns.

Hedgefundie updated the approach 6 months after posting the original strategy, opting to move to a 55/45 UPRO/TMF allocation from the previous 40/60 risk parity allocation. Hedgefundie’s reasons are laid out here, based primarily on the premise that the stocks portion of the strategy is the primary driver of the strategy’s returns and that the main purpose of holding the treasury bonds is essentially as “insurance” in case of a stock market crash.

hedgefundie excellent adventure strategy

Intrinsically, we’re relying on US stocks and long-term treasuries not crashing in tandem. At the time of writing, these assets have a seemingly reliably negative correlation close to -0.5 on average. A key fundamental assumption of this strategy that Hedgefundie proposes is that the US will not return to pre-Volcker (pre-1982) monetary policy. That is, we’ll be able to significantly mitigate or altogether avoid runaway inflation periods like the late 1970’s, during which time bonds suffered greatly.

Stocks and long-term treasury bonds do not have a perfect -1 correlation. Sometimes they move in the same direction. This is actually a good thing. Historically, when these assets moved in the same direction, it was usually up. On days when stocks dropped, long-term treasuries fairly reliably rose significantly to mitigate the total loss.

Simulated returns going back to 1987 look like this:

hedgefundie strategy backtest

Here are the rolling returns:

hedgefundie adventure rolling returns

Below are the drawdowns. Notice the smaller drawdowns in most cases compared to the S&P 500:

hedgefundie adventure drawdowns
hedgefundie adventure drawdowns graph

I agree with Hedgefundie’s assertion that extremely volatile assets like gold, commodities, small caps, etc. would suffer worse from volatility decay and would not improve the strategy’s diversification and return. International developed markets may be a viable option to include, but Boglehead member siamond found issues with the DZK ETF, which ended up closing in October, 2020 anyway.

If you wanted to for some reason, you could also use the slightly more expensive SPXL instead of UPRO. Their liquidity and performance should be nearly identical.

Make no mistake that this is a risky strategy by its very nature. Read up on leverage and the nature of leveraged ETF’s before employing this strategy. Do not put your entire portfolio in this strategy.

Read more details and nuances of the strategy on the original thread here. If you’ve got the time, there’s a lot of learning to be had throughout the entire thread. The thread has expanded into a Part 2 here.

UPRO vs. TQQQ

Some users have added a dash of TQQQ (3x the NASDAQ 100 index) for a minor tech tilt, as Big Tech has had a stellar run recently. Others still are using TQQQ as the entire equities position for the HFEA strategy. I personally think this is unnecessary and is purely performance chasing as a product of recency bias.

Imagine for a second that this is January, 2010. After the previous decade, the S&P 500 is down by about 10% for that time period versus the Nasdaq 100 being down about 50%. Would you still be as enthused about TQQQ? Logically, we should be more willing to buy when prices are low, but I’d be willing to bet the honest answer to this question for most folks would be “no.” A rational investor should want to avoid expensive stocks and buy cheap stocks, but this unfortunately isn’t how investors’ highly-emotional brains work.

TQQQ has beaten UPRO historically in terms of sheer performance. But don’t succumb to recency bias. Past performance does not indicate future performance. More importantly, large cap growth stocks are now looking extremely expensive relative to history and are at the valuations we saw in 2000 at the height of the tech bubble, meaning they now have lower future expected returns. To make things worse, fundamentals of these companies do not explain these valuations. The current situation is simply the result of an expansion of price multiples.

Value stocks, on the other hands, are looking extremely cheap, meaning they now have greater expected returns. Of course, we expect Value to outperform every day when we wake up anyway due to what we think is a risk factor premium. If you buy TQQQ, you won’t own any Value stocks. TQQQ is purely large cap growth stocks, the segment with lower expected returns. You also won’t own any small- or mid-cap stocks, which have outperformed large stocks historically.

The valuation spread between Value and Growth was recently as large as it’s ever been. Historically, wide value spreads have also reliably preceded massive outperformance by Value. At the end of the day, we’re still paying for a discounted sum of all future cash flows; Growth cannot get more expensive forever. Unfortunately, there’s no leveraged Value ETF.

People like to claim “tech is the future!” That may be true, but that doesn’t have much to do with stock market returns, which are not correlated with GDP. The economy is not the stock market, and the stock market is not the economy. Remember that extremely high expectations for these tech firms are already priced in, and they will have to exceed those expectations in order to beat the market. Moreover, good companies tend to make bad stocks and bad companies tend to make good stocks.

Also remember that you don’t need a “tech tilt” anyway; the market is already over 30% tech at this point. The NASDAQ 100 is basically a tech index at this point; it’s realistically about 70% tech, posing a sector concentration risk, which is uncompensated risk.

While I don’t employ or condone market timing, we also must acknowledge the fact that we may see rising interest rates sometime in the near future, and TQQQ inherently has more interest rate risk than UPRO. Moreover, TQQQ by definition excludes Financials, which tend to do well when interest rates rise.

Now may be the worst time to overweight large cap growth, but my time machine is broken. Only time will tell which index outperforms. We can’t know the future, but I would argue that’s the reason for broad diversification in the first place.

Why Not 100% UPRO?

If we’re expecting UPRO to be the driver of the strategy’s returns, why not go 100% UPRO? Hedgefundie addressed this in the original Bogleheads thread by pointing out that in doing so, we’d probably expect super deep drawdowns from which it may take decades to recover. Here’s a backtest showing 40/60 UPRO/TMF (Portfolio 1) vs. 100% UPRO (Portfolio 2) to illustrate:

hedgefundie 100 upro 1
Source: PortfolioVisualizer.com

Here’s UPRO vs. the S&P 500 going back to 1955:

hedgefundie 100 upro 2
Source: PortfolioVisualizer.com

My Hedgefundie Adventure Performance

Tracking the quarterly change in performance (relative to the initial value; no new deposits) of my Hedgefundie Adventure in my own portfolio starting October 1, 2019:

01/01/2020: +7%
04/01/2020: -2%
07/01/2020: +35%
10/01/2020: +54%
01/01/2021: +79%
04/01/2021: +67%
07/01/2021: +105%
10/01/2021: +105%
01/01/2022: +150%
04/01/2022: +98%
07/01/2022: +14%
10/01/2022: -14%
01/01/2023: -10%

Alternative Options To the Hedgefundie Portfolio

If you want to utilize a leveraged strategy similar to that proposed by Hedgefundie but be completely hands off, PIMCO has been doing something similar for years with their StocksPLUS Long Duration Fund (PSLDX) since 2007. I reviewed the fund here. Note that you can only access this fund through certain brokers, and it may have a minimum investment requirement and transaction fees. Those details are beyond the scope of this post; ask your broker if it’s available to you.

Similarly, if you’re doing this with a small portion of your portfolio or if you want to employ a leveraged strategy in a taxable account, WisdomTree’s NTSX may be a suitable option, effectively providing 1.5x leverage on a traditional 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio. It holds 90% straight S&P 500 stocks and 10% treasury futures to achieve effective notional exposure of 90/60 stocks/bonds. I reviewed the fund here.

Bogleheads user MotoTrojan proposed a variant by which you can match the volatility of Hedgefundie’s 55/45 UPRO/TMF, tone down the leverage a bit, and save some on the expense ratio of TMF by utilizing Vanguard’s Extended Duration Treasury ETF (EDV) in a ratio of 43/57 UPRO/EDV. Here’s an M1 pie for that. This variant would also be more tax-efficient than the original strategy that uses TMF if you’re doing this in taxable.

Rapidly rising interest rates and/or runaway inflation are the primary risks for this strategy. If those concerns are material to you and make you hesitant about this strategy, or if you simply want more diversification across asset types, then a leveraged All Weather Portfolio may appeal to you. There are also some diversifiers listed below.

Addressing Concerns Over Long-Term Treasury Bonds

I’ve gotten a lot of questions about – and a lot of the discussion in the original Bogleheads thread has been about – the use, utility, and viability of long-term treasury bonds as a significant chunk of this strategy. I’ll briefly address and hopefully quell these concerns below.

Again, by diversifying across uncorrelated assets, we mean holding different assets that will perform well at different times. For example, when stocks zig, bonds tend to zag. Those 2 assets are uncorrelated. Holding both provides a smoother ride, reducing portfolio volatility (variability of return) and risk.

Common comments nowadays about bonds include:

  • “Bonds are useless at low yields!”
  • “Bonds are for old people!”
  • “Long bonds are too volatile and too susceptible to interest rate risk!”
  • “Corporate bonds pay more!”
  • “Interest rates can only go up from here! Bonds will be toast!”
  • “Bonds return less than stocks!”

So why long term treasuries?

  1. It is fundamentally incorrect to say that bonds must necessarily lose money in a rising rate environment. Bonds only suffer from rising interest rates when those rates are rising faster than expected. Bonds handle low and slow rate increases just fine; look at the period of rising interest rates between 1940 and about 1975, where bonds kept rolling at their par and paid that sweet, steady coupon. Rates also rose steadily from 2016 to mid-2019, during which time TMF delivered a positive return.
  2. Bond pricing does not happen in a vacuum. Here are some more examples of periods of rising interest rates where long bonds delivered a positive return:
    1. From 1992-2000, interest rates rose by about 3% and long treasury bonds returned about 9% annualized for the period.
    2. From 2003-2007, interest rates rose by about 4% and long treasury bonds returned about 5% annualized for the period.
    3. From 2015-2019, interest rates rose by about 2% and long treasury bonds returned about 5% annualized for the period.
  3. New bonds bought by a bond index fund in a rising rate environment will be bought at the higher rate, while old ones at the previous lower rate are sold off. You’re not stuck with the same yield for your entire investing horizon.
  4. We know that treasury bonds are an objectively superior diversifier alongside stocks compared to corporate bonds. This is also why I don’t use the popular total bond market fund BND. It has been noted that this greater degree of uncorrelation between treasury bonds and stocks is conveniently amplified during periods of market turmoil, which researchers referred to as crisis alpha.
  5. Again, remember we need and want the greater volatility of long-term bonds so that they can more effectively counteract the downward movement of stocks, which are riskier and more volatile than bonds. We’re using them to reduce the portfolio’s volatility and risk. More volatile assets make better diversifiers. Most of the portfolio’s risk is still being contributed by stocks. Let’s use a simplistic risk parity example to illustrate. Risk parity for UPRO and TMF is about 40/60. If we want to slide down the duration scale, we must necessarily decrease UPRO’s allocation, as we only have 100% of space to work with. Risk parity for UPRO and TYD (or EDV) is about 25/75. Parity for UPRO and TLT is about 20/80. etc. Simply keeping the same 55/45 allocation (for HFEA, at least) and swapping out TMF for a shorter duration bond fund doesn’t really solve anything for us. This is why I’ve said that while it’s not perfect, TMF seems to be the “least bad” option we have, as we can’t lever intermediates (TYD) past 3x without the use of futures.
  6. This one’s probably the most important. We’re not talking about bonds held in isolation, which would probably be a bad investment right now. We’re talking about them in the context of a diversified portfolio alongside stocks, for which they are still the usual flight-to-safety asset during stock downturns. Specifically, for this strategy, the purpose of the bonds side is purely as an insurance parachute in the event of a stock crash. Though they provided a major boost to this strategy’s returns over the last 40 years while interest rates were dropping, we’re not really expecting any real returns from the bonds side going forward, and we’re intrinsically assuming that the stocks side is the primary driver of the strategy’s returns. Even if rising rates mean bonds are a comparatively worse diversifier (for stocks) in terms of future expected returns during that period does not mean they are not still the best diversifier to use.
  7. Similarly, short-term decreases in bond prices do not mean the bonds are not still doing their job of buffering stock downturns.
  8. Historically, when treasury bonds moved in the same direction as stocks, it was usually up.
  9. Interest rates are likely to stay low for a while. Also, there’s no reason to expect interest rates to rise just because they are low. People have been claiming “rates can only go up” for the past 20 years or so and they haven’t. They have gradually declined for the last 700 years without reversion to the mean. Negative rates aren’t out of the question, and we’re seeing them used in some foreign countries.
  10. Bond convexity means their asymmetric risk/return profile favors the upside.
  11. Again, I acknowledge that post-Volcker monetary policy, resulting in falling interest rates, has driven the particularly stellar returns of the raging bond bull market since 1982, but I also think the Fed and U.S. monetary policy are fundamentally different since the Volcker era, likely allowing us to altogether avoid runaway inflation environments like the late 1970’s going forward. Bond prices already have expected inflation baked in.

David Swensen summed it up nicely in his book Unconventional Success:

“The purity of noncallable, long-term, default-free treasury bonds provides the most powerful diversification to investor portfolios.”

Ok, bonds rant over. If you still feel some dissonance, the next section may offer some solutions.

Reducing Volatility and Drawdowns and Hedging Against Inflation and Rising Rates

It’s unlikely that any of the following will improve the total return of the portfolio, and whether or not they’ll improve risk-adjusted return is up for debate, but those concerned about inflation, rising rates, volatility, drawdowns, etc., and/or TMF’s future ability to adequately serve as an insurance parachute, may want to diversify a bit with some of the following options:

  • LTPZ – long term TIPS – inflation-linked bonds.
  • FAS – 3x financials – banks tend to do well when interest rates rise.
  • EDC – 3x emerging markets – diversify outside the U.S.
  • UTSL – 3x utilities – lowest correlation to the market of any sector; tend to fare well during recessions and crashes.
  • YINN – 3x China – lowly correlated to the U.S.
  • UGL – 2x gold – usually lowly correlated to both stocks and bonds, but a long-term expected real return of zero; no 3x gold funds available.
  • DRN – 3x REITs – arguable diversification benefit from “real assets.”
  • EDV – U.S. Treasury STRIPS.
  • TYD – 3x intermediate treasuries – less interest rate risk.
  • UDOW – 3x the Dow – greater loading on Value and Profitability factors than UPRO.
  • TNA – 3x Russell 2000 – small caps for the Size factor.
  • TAIL – OTM put options ladder to hedge tail risk. Mostly intermediate treasury bonds and TIPS.
  • PFIX – OTC payer swaptions on interest rate changes; effectively shorting long bonds.

The Hedgefundie Portfolio ETF Pie for M1 Finance (UPRO/TMF)

Again, most users are utilizing M1 Finance to deploy the Hedgefundie strategy due to its dynamic rebalancing with new deposits, zero transaction fees, and its simple, 1-click rebalance that you can do quarterly. It takes no more than 30 seconds every 3 months. I wrote a comprehensive review of M1 Finance here.

The risk parity 40/60 portfolio would be this pie which looks like this:

  • 40% UPRO
  • 60% TMF

To add this pie to your portfolio on M1 Finance, just click this link and then click “Save to my account.”

The updated 55/45 portfolio would be this pie which looks like this:

  • 55% UPRO
  • 45% TMF

To add this pie to your portfolio on M1 Finance, just click this link and then click “Save to my account.”

Canadians can find the above ETFs on Questrade or Interactive Brokers. Investors outside North America can use eToro or possibly Interactive Brokers.

M1 Finance currently has a promotion for up to $250 when initially funding an investment account, as outlined below:

m1 seed promo 2022

They also currently have a transfer bonus promotion for up to $2,500 when transferring an existing account from another brokerage, as outlined below:

m1 transfer bonus 2021
Learn More

Disclosures: I am long PSLDX, NTSX, UPRO, and TMF in my own portfolio.

Interested in more Lazy Portfolios? See the full list here.

Disclaimer:  While I love diving into investing-related data and playing around with backtests, I am in no way a certified expert. I have no formal financial education. I am not a financial advisor, portfolio manager, or accountant. This is not financial advice, investing advice, or tax advice. The information on this website is for informational and recreational purposes only. Investment products discussed (ETFs, mutual funds, etc.) are for illustrative purposes only. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or otherwise transact in any of the products mentioned. Do your own due diligence. Past performance does not guarantee future returns. Read my lengthier disclaimer here.

m1 finance get started


Don't want to do all this investing stuff yourself or feel overwhelmed? Check out my flat-fee-only fiduciary friends over at Advisor.com.

77 percent of millenials report their finances are a source of anxiety

Related Posts

  • How to Invest in Commodities With a Single ETF
  • The 3 Best Semiconductor ETFs (iShares, VanEck, & SPDR)
  • How To Shop for a Mortgage Lender To Get the Lowest Rate
  • Day Trading vs. Investing in Stocks – Which Is Better?
  • The Best Vanguard Growth Funds – 5 Popular ETFs

About John Williamson

Analytical and entrepreneurial-minded data nerd, usability enthusiast, Boglehead, and Oxford comma advocate. I lead the Paid Search marketing efforts at Gild Group. I'm not a big fan of social media, but you can find me on LinkedIn and Reddit.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. JB says

    March 2, 2023 at 9:28 am

    What’s the latest on this strategy? I know it got massacred during the last year, but does it still show promise long term?

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      March 3, 2023 at 4:03 pm

      No one knows. The viability of an inherently long term strategy doesn’t change based on its recent performance, either bad or good.

      Reply
  2. Brian Q says

    February 21, 2023 at 11:04 am

    Question on M1, can I set my HFEA account there up for quarterly rebalancing? My understanding of the rebalancing with HFEA is I need to sell every share and re-buy at the proper allocations. Doesn’t M1 just sell the percentage you need moved to rebalance and then buy the same percentage on the other side of the ledger? In other words, if I’m at 57/43 in a traditional 60/40 portfolio, wouldn’t M1 sell 3% of bonds and buy 3% stocks? My understanding is that the HFEA rebalancing won’t work with that and I’ll need to sell all UPRO/TMF and buy it back to avoid time decay. Is that wrong?

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      February 21, 2023 at 11:15 am

      Rebalancing is simply selling the overweight asset(s) to buy the underweight asset(s). This is 1 click with M1. Not sure where you got the idea that you need to sell everything.

      Reply
  3. Dennis says

    January 9, 2023 at 11:49 am

    With all the impact on HFEA strategy, I wonder if 2x SSO/UBT/UBS makes better sense now? Also, NTSX’s can be seemingly balanced out with DBMF fund. Here is what I came up with after back-testing in Portfolio Visualizer for various tax-sheltered DIY retirement accounts to move from NTSX/SPGP/IWY 40/40/20:

    NTSX/NTSI DBMF/KMLM 35/35 15/15
    SPGP/RWJ/PDBC 75/15/10
    SSO/UBT/UST 75/15/10

    Any feedback would be much appreciated.

    Many thanks!

    Reply
  4. Sujit says

    January 1, 2023 at 2:07 pm

    Can you please share how you simulated the returns for UPRO prior to 2009 (when UPRO was formed). Thanks.

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      January 2, 2023 at 1:31 pm

      Download historical returns of S&P 500, 3x daily and subtract fees.

      Reply
  5. greg says

    November 18, 2022 at 12:57 am

    Hey John,

    Any thought on why both UPRO and TMF and moving down in tandem.?

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      November 21, 2022 at 8:04 pm

      High inflation, rising interest rates, less demand for long bonds.

      Reply
  6. Tyler says

    September 14, 2022 at 1:56 pm

    Hi John,

    I’m hanging in there with this strategy. Hard to time the market, of course, but I should have known that buying bonds in the fall of 2021 with rates at historic lows wasn’t the best idea…UPRO and TMF have been moving down together since January 2022. Ouch. Hindsight is 20/20.

    Good for us all to remember that losses aren’t realized unless you’re selling at a loss. If you’re 10+ years from needing/wanting this money, relax, don’t panic, stay the course.

    With that, I’m wondering if you might be willing to update your great charts and graphs in your post to give us all a better sense of where the strategy is now as compared to other strategies?

    Thanks a million for the great info!

    Tyler

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      September 15, 2022 at 11:36 am

      Good idea, Tyler. I should update some things. Thanks!

      Reply
  7. JB says

    August 31, 2022 at 8:52 am

    Is this a disasterous strategy for taxable? I can’t put more money into tax-advanatged as this point, but would like to top up more. in taxable? Is this a bad move?

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      August 31, 2022 at 8:32 pm

      Definitely not ideal in taxable. NTSX is a very tax efficient watered down version of it.

      Reply
  8. Ming says

    August 17, 2022 at 2:14 am

    Did you ever find a way to add additional diversification with international exposure?

    60% / 55% UPRO any real difference? Why not just go for 60% UPRO for 3x 60/40?

    Reply
  9. Taylor says

    August 4, 2022 at 9:10 am

    Hi John,

    I’m curious to hear your thoughts on the following allocation that has been popping up on Reddit. The premise is that the 55/45 strategy worked great in the bull market over the past 30 yrs, but since yields can’t really go down too much further now, the author is proposing a 75/25 strategy with DAILY rebalancing instead.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/trueHFEA/comments/uh1eeg/optimal_asset_allocation_for_hfea/

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      August 4, 2022 at 12:37 pm

      I personally probably wouldn’t go less than 30% TMF. Daily rebalancing would be too cumbersome for me unless it was automated somehow. But I’d stick with quarterly rebalancing anyway. Note that the author there was not proposing daily rebalancing but simply used that for modeling.

      Reply
  10. Taylor says

    July 26, 2022 at 2:16 am

    Hi John, I’ve learned so much over the past 2 years thanks to your site. The wealth of information and ideas for a beginning investor such as myself is priceless and I can’t thank you enough for the work you’ve done and continue to do!

    Quick question – in your portfoliovisualizer backtest, you used the 40/60 pie. What are results for the 55/45? I’m not quite sure how to simulate as far back as you did.

    Reply
  11. Justin says

    July 19, 2022 at 4:16 pm

    How does Mototrojan’s version returns compare to that of the 55/45 HFEA? I’m looking to employ one of the two into a taxable account, would Mototrojan’s version end up being better in a taxable account? I’m looking for absolute returns so should I still go with HFEA or do you think Mototrojan’s tax efficiency will be better?

    This would be my extremely aggressive portfolio account so it is whatever money that I’m willing to lose all on.
    I love your articles have read a majority of them, thank you for having such great information so readily available!

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      July 26, 2022 at 9:41 am

      Less leverage. MT’s should be slightly more tax efficient, yes. Thanks, Justin!

      Reply
  12. Cuban Sandwich says

    July 7, 2022 at 5:08 pm

    They’re new, but have you looked at RPAR and UPAR? Levered up TIPS/Commodities/VT/Gold. UPAR is a juiced RPAR. Only 2 years of data on RPAR and only 7 months of UPAR. UPAR has been trading at a premium to NAV. I don’t like market timing bets, but with commodities getting crush, bonds crush, equities crushed, should be interesting to see how this year stress tests those two funds.

    No COI. I don’t own either.

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      July 7, 2022 at 10:37 pm

      Yep, I discussed them here. Interesting one-fund solutions indeed for a more “all weather” approach.

      Reply
  13. Al says

    June 10, 2022 at 7:08 pm

    Excellent article, thanks for breaking it down. Seems a good time to start DCA-ing into that strategy.

    Reply
  14. cheapskatevalue says

    May 21, 2022 at 9:53 am

    I worry that in an inflationary 1970s type environment, in which both stocks and long term bonds get slowly killed, this portfolio will get annihilated. The backtesting needs to include an inflationary regime, or else in my view this is criminally misleading / risky.

    Reply
    • cheapskatevalue says

      May 21, 2022 at 9:55 am

      I know you call out the key assumption about not going into a pre-Volcker era, but I think that is an assumption that no long-term investor could responsibly make. I really think this blog post should come with a huge warning sign, and perhaps the inflation disclaimer should be in bold red ink ^.^

      Reply
    • John Williamson says

      May 21, 2022 at 9:56 pm

      Indeed it would. It’s what we’re currently seeing. The backtest does include that period. I noted several times one should assess their own beliefs about future inflation. This was discussed at length in the original Bogleheads thread.

      Reply
  15. Kenster says

    May 9, 2022 at 6:10 pm

    So what are folks using doing these days using HedgeFundie’s leveraged idea? I’m seeing some folks have as much as 25% of their portfolio in this concept? What’s the word on the street – are folks hanging in there on the UPRO/TMF combo?

    You’d need strong stomachs – the idea was that TMF would provide some downside protection but it is DOWN -55% YTD – while UPRO is also down about 38%.

    Instead of using the S&P500 leveraged 3x as with UPRO – what about a bit more tamer/moderate leverage approach using SSO (S&P500 2x leverage ETF) – and combined with EDV?

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      May 10, 2022 at 10:15 am

      As we’d expect, some are sticking with it and others are realizing they don’t have the risk tolerance for such a strategy and are deleveraging or bailing altogether. This was always the achilles heel of the strategy.

      Reply
  16. Trent says

    May 3, 2022 at 1:20 pm

    The drawdown has been rough over the last 6 months. I’m holding this portfolio in my Roth for the long-term, It looks like I moved into it at a bad time (July 2021).

    Reply
  17. Latha says

    May 1, 2022 at 1:14 pm

    Hello John, I have learnt a lot about investing from your website, deeply appreciate you sharing your knowledge and breaking down complex topic, to a level understandable to most of us.
    Can you share if your HEFA investment is in taxable or tax advantage account?

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      May 1, 2022 at 10:48 pm

      Thanks! IRA.

      Reply
  18. Mango says

    April 13, 2022 at 9:53 pm

    I saw elsewhere a 2x leveraged version that is more tax efficient (similar backtested returns to PSLDX):
    50% NTSX
    30% UPRO
    20% TMF

    It seems great in theory. In addition, when I’m ready to exit, I would only have to sell UPRO and TMF and can keep NTSX as a core position.

    Thoughts?

    Reply
    • John Williamson says

      April 14, 2022 at 12:30 pm

      This would end up being more expensive and no more tax efficient than just using equal parts UPRO/VOO and equal parts TMF/TLT. It’s also 135/90 exposure, so not quite the same thing as just 2x. Don’t overthink it.

      Reply
      • John says

        September 5, 2022 at 10:13 pm

        John, what do you think on below allocation? Goal would be to lower volatility in high inflation times but still capture most of the advantages of HFEA. Quarterly rebalancing.

        Normal times
        60%UPRO, 35%TMF, 5%GLD

        Inflation above 4.5%
        60%UPRO/20%TMF/5% GLD / 15% UGL

        Reply
« Older Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Patreon

Email Newsletter

Sign up to receive email updates when a new post is published.

Don't worry, I hate spam too. No ads.

Most Popular

Ray Dalio All Weather Portfolio Review, ETFs, & Leverage (2023)

HEDGEFUNDIE’s Excellent Adventure (UPRO/TMF) – A Summary

Golden Butterfly Portfolio Review and M1 Finance ETF Pie

David Swensen Portfolio (Yale Model) Review and ETFs To Use

Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio Review, ETFs, & Leverage (2023)

Corporate Bonds vs. Government Bonds (Treasuries) – The Showdown

VIG vs. VYM – Vanguard’s 2 Popular Dividend ETFs (Review)

Warren Buffett ETF Portfolio (90/10) Review and ETFs (2023)

The 60/40 Portfolio Review and ETF Pie for M1 Finance

Bogleheads 3 Fund Portfolio Review and Vanguard ETFs (2023)

m1 sidebar

rocket money

m1 sidebar

visor sidebar

retirable

Paul Merriman Ultimate Buy and Hold Portfolio Review, M1 Pie (2023)

Lowest Margin Rates Brokers (2023 Comparison)

M1 Finance vs. Vanguard Brokerage Comparison [2023 Review]

M1 Finance vs. Fidelity Brokerage Comparison [2023 Review]

The Best M1 Finance Dividend Pie for FIRE & Income Investors

Portfolio Asset Allocation by Age – Beginners To Retirees

The 5 Best Stock Brokers Online for Investing (2023 Review)

The 4 Best Investing Apps for Beginners (2023 Review)

The 7 Best Small Cap ETFs (3 From Vanguard) for 2023

The 6 Best REIT ETFs To Invest in Real Estate for 2023

The 6 Best Tech ETFs To Buy Tech Stocks in 2023

9 Best Clean Energy ETFs To Go Green in Your Portfolio (2023)

The 13 Best Small Cap Value ETFs (3 From Vanguard) for 2023

Why, How, & Where To Invest Your Emergency Fund To Beat Inflation

VOO vs. VTI – Vanguard’s S&P 500 and Total Stock Market ETFs

9 Best International ETFs To Buy (6 From Vanguard) in 2023

Ben Felix Model Portfolio (Rational Reminder, PWL) ETFs & Review

Factor Investing and Factor ETFs – The Ultimate Guide

Gone Fishin’ Portfolio Review (Alexander Green) & ETFs (2023)

TQQQ – Is It A Good Investment for a Long Term Hold Strategy?

Recent Posts

Roth IRA vs. Traditional IRA – Which Is Better for You? (2023)

VXUS vs. IXUS – Vanguard or iShares International ETF?

Tail Risk – What It Is and How To Hedge Against It

I Bonds Explained (US Savings Bonds) – Ultimate Guide (2023)

JEPI ETF Review – JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF

Sharpe Ratio vs. Sortino vs. Calmar – Risk Adjusted Return

Portfolio Risk Explained – How To Think About Risk and Volatility

HNDL ETF Review – Is HNDL a Good Investment? (7HANDL™ ETF)

NUSI ETF Review – Is NUSI a Good Investment?

3 Best SPAC ETFs To Invest in SPACs in 2023 – But Should You?

VOO vs. VOOV vs. VOOG – Vanguard S&P 500, Value, or Growth?

VXUS vs. VEU – Which Vanguard Total International ETF?

VT vs. VTI – Global Stock Market vs. Total U.S. Stock Market

RPAR Risk Parity ETF Review – An All Weather Portfolio ETF?

PSLDX – A Review of the PIMCO StocksPLUS® Long Duration Fund

View All...

Footer

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Patreon

Amazon Affiliate Disclosure

OptimizedPortfolio.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Email Newsletter

Sign up to receive email updates when a new post is published.

Don't worry, I hate spam too. No ads.

About - My Toolbox - Privacy - Terms - Contact


Copyright © 2023 OptimizedPortfolio.com

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Ok, Got ItReject Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT