Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I’m just trying to understand “very aggressive” – is it the strategy that is “very aggressive” or is it maybe (foolish) execution that would make it that?
If you have 5 LI strategies at 20% each with $100,000 ‘exposure’ in each and therefor only invest $33,333 in SPXS/TMV because it is 3x to get your $100,000 exposure (along with the rebalancing benefits of these etfs versus straight UIS) is that being “very aggressive”?
If I invested $100,000 instead of $33,333 when overall I only wanted $500,000 total exposure that would be very aggressive (aka stupid) for several reasons.
So I was thinking that the TMV/SPXL is less aggressive than the UIS SPY/TLT strategy for the same total exposure because of the rebalancing benefits (which exceed borrowing costs).
In one of Frank’s comments a while ago I believe he mentioned a minimum single strategy size of $50,000, though on a followup question discussing the BRS he said you could use one etf versus two to keep costs down…..we were discussing a $20,000 account.
If we wish to add Bug to the other 5 strategies (UIS,MY,GM,GS/L,BRS) is there a recommended overall size? Because the strategy holds more than 2 etf’s, perhaps 4-7, then what threshold/overall strategy size would make monthly rebalancing for Bug reasonable. For example, if on average you hold 5 etfs in Bug you may want to start with $10,000 or $20,0000 or more in each knowing there will be monthly rebalancing and transcation fees.
Good job working through this rollout. Thanks.
