Alt Palooza

Late Saturday afternoon, I essentially got to the end of the internet (stealing someone else's joke there) so while I was waiting for it to fill back up, I did what I often do, pulled an insane portfolio idea out of the air and played around with it on testfol.io and Finominal. 

Here's the original Alt Palooza we're playing with.

I also built a risk weighted version using Finominal that tilted the portfolio heavily to APHPX and FLXIX. I've mentioned that Finominal has a tab where it will offer a simplified portfolio but it's usually nowhere close to the original. The simplified suggestion was to put it all in to iShares MSCI World (URTH). Whatever this portfolio is, it is nothing like URTH. Today I clicked on the Fee Reduction tab which is much more interesting. It suggested a fund replacement for each of the five funds above as follows;

Then clicking through on a comparison there is a bunch of things with varying degrees of utility. The next two at the portfolio level are interesting to me. Finominal thinks that no risk is coming from the fixed income sleeve despite 39% of the fund being in fixed income. It's not really fixed income but I think it is more of an indication of neutralizing the current interest rate risk and volatility in traditional fixed income markets. More simply, I think the portfolio gets the attributes that people want from fixed income which is steady returns with lower volatility. 

 

The risk page on Finominal also breaks down the sector risks which in this comparison is non-existent. A sector analysis could be helpful with any portfolio study if there is a market calamity that starts and is related to the excess currently inherent in the tech and tech-adjacent parts of the market with AI spending. 

The backtest is short because of the age of a few of the funds so no real bear market for us to assess but there was some crisis alpha during the Tariff Panic from 2025. I think the cheaper version suggested by Finominal is inferior but that mix does accomplish some of what we're trying to achieve. Now that I've found that tool, I will refer to it when we do these studies.   

QLEIX as the largest holding and despite being equity oriented was actually up 19% in 2022 which is great but I think it would be a mistake to expect that kind of result in any future bear market. QLEIX has some instances of serious differentiation versus the S&P 500. In 2022 that was a good thing but in 2020, not so much, the fund was down almost 14% versus a gain of 18% for the index. 

I asked Copilot how the Alt Palooza might have done in 2022 and how it might to do in future bear markets. 

Taking that assessment at face value is not the right way to use the table. A table like this might be able to point out a vulnerability that may not be obvious at first glance. On the way to making this table, Copilot got a few things wrong that I had to correct. 

Circling back to the results from testfol.io, the risk weighting version is interesting. The volatility is barely detectable but the portfolio has almost the same CAGR as 60/40. In the context of 75/50 ( a portfolio that achieves 75% of the upside and half the downside) the Alt Palooza backtests like a 95/25. Cool!

I think the heavier weighting to FLXIX and APHPX which account for a combined 72% of the portfolio make the risk weighted version more vulnerable to some sort of systemic/credit event as noted in the table. Copilot, what do you think? "The Finominal 'risk‑weighted' version would almost certainly do worse than your original version in a credit event." 

This observation with the risk weighted version is a small scale example of trying to understand why something might have done well and then trying to understand what could go wrong or otherwise threaten the portfolio. 

It's an interesting portfolio but all of these funds are complex. Keeping tabs on them and the overall portfolio would be for more difficult than using just a little bit of complexity to make an otherwise simple portfolio more robust. Simplicity hedged with a little bit of complexity, not the other way around. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Yieldy But Less Alty

A reader left the following question on an older post.

Any thought on a a 50/50 portfolio of BLNDX and QRPIX? AI seems to think it would be quite complementary.

My answer;

I bet it would work, it sort of backtests well but look at 2020. QRPIX was down a lot and BLNDX was down very slightly while 60/40 was up a lot. I've noticed that AQR funds every so often have a very bad outlying year and then will have the occasional very good outlying year.

The way it backtests, year by year there is a lot of differentiation versus 60/40. That's something you really need to get comfortable with so you don't give up in 2020 only to have a great year like 2022 come along right after.

Do yo consider QRPIX to be macro? I'd probably split the macro (or whatever you think of it as being ) into several funds in case QRPIX has particularly poor run. Same with BLNDX. It's a great fund but I'd build the managed futures/equity sleeve with multiple funds too.

The chart I looked at to give my answer.

There are a couple of years in there where sitting on the 50/50 combo would have been hard to do. Before posting the results below, think about what you might do in early 2021. Then, if 2023 was a reversion to the mean for 2022, how difficult would it have been to hold onto that notion as it lagged far behind VBAIX that year. 

The full 6.5 year result looks great but at some point, real differentiation becomes too difficult to endure. Going forward, there's no way to know whether that combo will outperform but barring some sort of catastrophe with one of the funds, the idea can probably work. Work is not the same thing as outperform. 

Speaking of complex funds and catastrophes, yesterday we mentioned the QIS ETF from Simplify that has more than cut in half possibly due in large part to having built its strategy around going long volatility. 

Sort of related, Corey Hoffstein noticed that Simplify removed the subadvisor from its managed futures fund CTA. A few weeks ago, Mike Green who was one of the brains behind many of the funds left to start his own firm. Per Corey's Twitter thread, Harley Bass who was the other part of the brain trust is also gone as is Paisley Nardini who'd become the face of the firm in various places. 

Some of Simplify's funds do well but some of them like CYA (now closed) and QIS don't. Simplify US Equity Plus Downside Convexity (SPD) is another one that we've looked at a few times and appears to not work well. It's essentially the S&P 500 with a put option overlay to protect against drawdowns. SPD's first real test was 2022. For that year, SPD was down 700 basis points more than SPY.

You can see inside the green box, SPD went down in lockstep with SPY and then kept going down after SPY bottomed. 

Here's a dire, even if not original, bearish take for domestic equities from Paul Tudor Jones. 

Valuation matters but these arguments have no predictive value to tell us when it will matter. My usual take on these things is to not try to predict anything. Instead, I focus on being ready if it happens. Based on stock market history, it seems reasonable to think that between now and maybe 2050, there could be another lost decade for US equities. 

In a lost decade for domestic equities things like managed futures can do well, commodities can do well, macro strategies can do well, dividend streams can continue and foreign equities can do well. A few weeks ago we looked at constructing yieldy portfolios with the following example.

That backtested well but it is a complicated ensemble. I wanted to try to tweak it to be a little simpler and a little less alty.

Less Alty is closer to a normal equity/fixed income portfolio, favoring equities but all of the equity funds are lower beta than the S&P 500. Blended together proportionately, the four equity holdings have a beta of 0.52. MDST is a new name for the blog, it is a derivative income fund that owns MLPs but it has a short track record. 

The yields are 9% and 7% respectively without using any crazy high yielders.

Less Alty is interesting but probably less robust in a lost decade. It might be better for someone looking for more yield without taking on the same volatility as VBAIX and less concerned about the probability of a potential lost decade....a lost decade that of course might never come. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Or Just Diversify Your Diversifiers

More quickish hits today.

First, more on the DYMIX mutual fund that we looked at yesterday. The fund has done well performance wise but has been very volatile. It has about the same level of volatility as the S&P 500 but is only 50% equities. The mix of equities and macro has meant the fund has taken a very different path to a similar result as SPY. 

A 50/50 blend of the two brings the volatility down noticeably, improves the Sharpe Ratio and has a meaningful impact on max drawdowns and average drawdowns. I have no idea if this can carry forward or not as it probably relies on DYMIX continuing to make good decisions but it is a good and simple example of blending two very volatile things to get a result with less volatility. This is why BTAL has worked as a way to hedge portfolios but 50% to BTAL is absolutely the wrong weighting, that should be much smaller. 

Yesterday, I said that the FOXY ETF from Simplify might turn out to be a useful fund for adding currency exposure, it is a variation on the carry trade. We've also looked at a couple of stinkers from Simplify too. I think we were early to realize that its Tail Risk fund which had the symbol CYA wouldn't work because of the way it relied on going long volatility via the VIX and sure enough the fund went down a ton and closed. 

We've been curious but skeptical of the Simplify Multi QIS Alternative ETF (QIS). QIS stands for quantitative investment strategies. 

Stinker. It's more difficult to look through QIS' holdings to understand what the story is compared to CYA but Copilot thinks that QIS has also been hurt by going long volatility. Ouch.

Very quickly on autocallables, ProShares posted a glossary of terms that might be useful if you're trying to learn about them. 

ETF provider Kurv just listed a capital efficient fund along the lines of WisdomTree or ReturnStacked with the Kurv US Large Cap Tax Optimized ETF (LCTO). The prospectus allows it to be 100% S&P 500/100% fixed income which will usually be municipal bond ETFs. Currently though, it is only 58% in munis so for now the weighting is similar to NTSX from WisdomTree but that fund owns AGG-like exposure instead of just munis and it allocates 90% to equities not 100%.

LCTO is actively managed so this backtest doesn't give it credit for any good decisions related to shortening duration it might have made if it had existed. LCTO has done noticeably better but it has more S&P 500 exposure. Just peeling out the muni bond ETFs, that sleeve compounded at 1.01% for the same period versus -0.23% for AGG.

You can listen to this podcast from Kurv to learn more about what they have in mind. 

LCTO was discussed in the podcast as a portable alpha strategy. I'm not a huge fan of implementing portable alpha this way. 

If an investor puts 67% into NTSX or LCTO, they have 33% left over to either add yield like T-bills or add alternatives to better diversify the 67% they put into the levered fund. That sounds good in theory but how difficult would it be to have 2/3 of your account down 30% as was the case in 2022? Salvaging 2022 would have required really dialing in the exact alts to mitigate that decline. Having to get that right seems much more difficult than avoiding the leverage and diversifying your diversifiers. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

A Farmland ETF?

A lot of (hopefully) quick hits today.

On Wednesday I got a call and an email from the Blueprint Chesapeake Multi-Asset Trend ETF (TFPN). Similar to MFUT from Cambria that we looked at the other day, Jerry Parker is the brains behind the fund and the point of differentiation of the strategy underlying both is they use individual stocks as part of the mix. 

The returns are not identical, if you're curious you can look at the two funds to try to figure out the differences. The website for TFPN has a lot of information including this asset mix that excludes cash. Quick note, managed futures funds typically hold a lot of cash/T-bills to collateralize the futures positions.

I read that as 50% fixed income, 20% each to equities and currencies and 10% to commodities. It feels quadrant inspired or adjacent. I plugged those weightings in as follows.

True to yesterday's post, it has 20% in unconstrained equity beta with SPMO. Commodities with ARCIX might offer some of the attributes of managed futures we talked about yesterday but just with commodities.

That mix offers a very smooth ride. With so little in equities it might have trouble keeping up with the other two longer term but, CEW was the only fund I could come up with for currency and it added almost nothing to the growth rate. Given more time, the FOXY ETF from Simplify might turn out to be a better mousetrap for this idea.

About a month ago we looked at the Dynamic Alpha Macro Fund (DYMIX). The fund is essentially 50% equities and 50% macro. For a macro fund, it has very few moving parts. A month ago the macro positioning held gold, copper and five year treasuries. In that first post we saw that it was struggling and following up on yesterday's post, we did do a little attribution analysis. The decline in gold and to a lesser extent, the decline in copper hurt the fund. One month later and the fund is long corn, sugar and the yen in addition to gold and it is short coffee, cattle and the five year treasury. 

Fast forward a month, gold was up a lot and corn was up 10% which helped the fund lift 9% since that last post. I like the idea of 50% equities with 50% macro but DYMIX might be more of a multi asset fund than a macro fund. I'm not sure but I am keeping tabs on it.

This is something I've been talking about for 20 years. Not so much an ETF, but figuring out how to invest in farmland and if that turns out to be an ETF, cool!

A long time ago, I went down this rabbit hole looking at some very small foreign stocks that owned plantations and the like. It was very difficult to get decent information and just watching the stocks for a while, they were not investible. I will be very interested to see if it comes to market and what it actually will do. This is a very useful alt but I have no idea at this point if this fund will be the answer. More to come. 

Last one. ProShares has thrown its hat into the autocallable ring. 

• ACSP references the S&P 500
• ACQQ references QQQ
• ACRT references the Russell 2000

I sat in on a webinar which focused primarily on ACSP. A couple of high level points; autocallable ETFs actually track more volatile versions of the reference indexes to get the yield up. ProShares also said repeatedly that autocallables are like complimentary cousins to covered call ETFs. They didn't word it this way but covered call funds sell....ahem...call options while autocallable strategies are better thought of as selling puts. 

The presentation included "pre-inception" performance going back to 2010 and showed the year by year yields ranging from 14%-20%. They put up a chart comparing the S&P 500 to the higher vol index (autocall index) used for ACSP and it showed going up less but with more volatility most of the time. In a few of the serious drawdowns, the autocall index actually went down less. If I understood correctly, the distributions are not in jeopardy until there is a 35% drawdown in their respective indexes. Admittedly that won't happen very often and if ACSP is anything like Calamos Autocall (CAIE), then there is a mechanism where distributions resume after some amount of recovery.

I submitted a couple of questions to better understand what the real risk is but they were not answered. We are in a 4-5% world. Supposedly, ACSP will range from 14-20%, the website for the fund shows 18% currently, so there is risk there. The extra 14% is compensating for something and I cannot figure out what that is. Taking that sort of risk is not necessarily bad but I think taking that risk without understanding it is a bad idea. 

JELM from Janus seems to be the lowest yielding of the autocallables at more like 9% (please leave a comment if you know otherwise). In a world of crazy high yielders, it can be easy to lose sight of 9% being a fantastic payout rate. The track record is nowhere long enough for me to use the fund at this point but everything else being equal, 9% will be less risky than 20%.

And "pre-inception?" Really? I felt icky just typing that. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Next Level Backtesting

Morningstar has a few model ETF portfolios. Maybe I was the last to know but either way, they have a basic portfolio, a defensive portfolio, factor based and income oriented portfolio. This is the defensive portfolio;

Below is a comparison of their defensive portfolio to the basic which is 40% VTI, 20% VXUS and 40% BND. The objective of the defensive portfolio is lower volatility, smaller drawdowns and a better risk adjusted return. Going back almost 15 years, it appears to have done that.

The defensive portfolio reduces bond duration versus putting all 40% of the fixed income sleeve into BND which tracks the same index as AGG. This alone helps reduce the portfolio's volatility. 

Using nothing but min vol ETFs for the equity exposure isn't a great idea. Implementing the defensive portfolio as presented means having very little chance of keeping up with the broad market when it has a decent or larger move up. If you look at USMV compared to SPY, you will see it was very close to SPY for its first seven or eight years, since then USMV has lagged meaningfully. Copilot says USMV changed its methodology to get more defensive starting in late 2018. 

Instead of going heavy into USMV, I think it makes more sense to have some exposure, maybe a smaller percentage, in something that has normal equity market volatility like market cap weighting or some other factor that gives a better opportunity for growth. Yes, that is pretty much AQR's argument against using buffer funds. Just own less equity. 

If a portfolio has some exposure to SPY or something else that has a chance to keep up with markets and the market absolutely rips, you'll have something that captures the effect. Some exposure to unconstrained equity beta is pretty important.

It is also important to have some exposure to something that gives the opportunity to protect against a downturn in markets or has the opportunity to provide "normal" returns in case equities can't get it done for a short period like 2022 or a longer period like the 2000's. Something with these attributes probably helps more than having a min vol ETF. For me, managed futures fits this bill. Having a negative correlation (sometimes) or no correlation means it can go up when stocks go down. This isn't infallible as we saw in the tariff panic but managed futures did do well during the Covid Crash which was a fast decline and slower declines like 2022 and the Financial Crisis. 

The following portfolio kneecaps the domestic equity exposure with BJUL but allows foreign equities to capture the full effect for better or worse. SHRIX and FLOT avoid duration and we talked about managed futures already.

This is intentionally suboptimal but it keeps the domestic/foreign equity balance about the same. 

Portfolio 3 has the return of Morningstar's Basic but the volatility of the Defensive. VXUS was mildly additive and AQMIX going up 35% in 2022 was meaningful. 

There's something very interesting in that last screen shot. It only goes back eight years. For the last eight years, the Morningstar Defensive Portfolio does not have a better risk adjusted return as measured by the Sharpe Ratio like it does above in the first performance table covering 14+ years. The difference is the methodology change in late 2018 that I mentioned. 

The following only goes back three years but you can see the Defensive not having better risk adjusted returns.

This will be harsh but it seems plausible that in assembling the Defensive Portfolio, they did not account for the methodology change. USMV's first few years kept up with SPY which might have skewed their backtesting in putting the model together. I don't think the model has reasonable probability of a better risk adjusted return going forward either. 

This post is now going down the road of a more detailed attribution analysis. I usually throw in a tidbit about what might have helped a portfolio we experimented with or held it back, like comment above about VXUS being mildly additive. Knowing a portfolio might struggle when a portfolio has too much or too little in foreign stocks or if managed futures struggles is one thing but missing a fund's strategy shift is more problematic. Maybe that didn't happen in this case so the takeaway is to be aware of the possibility that a fund will change its strategy. AQRIX is another example, usually I say something like it used to be risk parity and while it changed its strategy it is still influenced by risk parity. 

A different type of attribution thanks to a reader comment on Twitter; on a recent post I talked about multi-factor equity funds potentially blurring the effects they are seeking. The reader noted that the Vanguard Multi-Factor ETF (VFMF) has outperformed on a three year and a five year basis. Yes but there's more to the story.

The YTD and one year numbers appear to be anomalous. Just looking at the holdings doesn't give an answer so this is an example where AI can help with the attribution. Copilot said that overweights to energy, financial and healthcare have helped. Maybe, maybe not but it has never outperformed to the upside like that before. The one other time it outperformed by a lot was 2022, when it was only down 5.66%. Going year by year, in nine full and partial years to look at, VFMF has outperformed SPY three times.

I'm not bagging on VFMF even a little bit. Lagging a little most of the time but offering crisis alpha is perfectly valid. The point is that three year and five year performance are valuable datapoints but may not be sufficient to understand what you're getting. I asked if there is any basis to expect the outperformance of the last year to continue and Copilot said the outperformance is "episodic" not persistent and that the "fund behaves like a high‑tracking‑error mid‑cap value strategy whose returns oscillate around the market rather than compound above it."

In future posts, I'll try to talk a little more about attribution for these ideas we play around with. I do think I touch on it but more in passing than in depth. Backtesting is helpful but the next level for real world use is understanding why a fund or portfolio did well or did poorly and this work is easier with AI. It was easy to spot the performance anomaly with VFMF and know to question it but in this case it was not easy to understand why without AI.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Black Sheep Portfolio

A couple of weeks ago, we looked at a blasphemous portfolio that combined derivative income and buffer funds. It was blasphemous because while so many professional market participants hate them, many individual investors love them. The results from what we looked at were fine despite the various flaws that derivative income and buffer funds have. They do have flaws and while hopefully we can learn something from these funds, the flaws don't go away. 

Either as a coincidence or maybe prompted from the above linked post, I've been having a conversation over LinkedIn with with a portfolio manager at another firm that uses buffer and floor products somewhat heavily. As a very round number he mentioned a 35% allocation to buffers and floors. That seemed high but according to Copilot, that is well within the norm of models that use these funds. Moderate model portfolios tend to range from 30-50%. I wouldn't have guessed that but there you go. 

It's a short period available to study. BJUL is a buffer fund that we have looked at a few times. It protects the first 9% down for one year while allowing 18% upside. BJUL just reset on July 1. SFLR sort of does the opposite, there is exposure to an initial leg down but offers more protection if the S&P 500 goes down a lot. HEQT uses puts to hedge and USMV is optimized to have lower volatility than the broad market. Here's a summary from Claude;

In 2022, BJUL was down 7.38%%, USMV was down 9.42% and HEQT was down 8.25% compared to 18% for the S&P 500. 

I wanted to update the blasphemous portfolio to be even more hated with a value ETF and low volatility managed futures. In addition to the negative sentiment toward buffers and derivative income, it seems like very few people are interested in value stocks and low vol managed future is an odd ball that is worth exploring more. 

Either version really is a Black Sheep allocation but even still, with nothing I'd want to own, the results are interesting.

The intuitively weighted version yields less than 2% while risk weighted version yields about 3.70%. The compounded real returns were 6.19%, 4.60% and 6.01% respectively. 

There was no place to hide during the 2020 Covid Crash, the important thing from that event was simply not to panic. That was a fast decline and fast declines tend to snapback most of the panic very quickly. In 2022 though, both versions of the Black Sheep portfolio was dramatically better than 60/40. There was no real help in the Tariff Panic of 2025.

To the extent the Black Sheep portfolios did well, there is some equity beta to capture upside and they avoid bond duration. The blending's result is obviously close to 60/40 most of the time which is ok but differentiated when most needed in 2022. In terms of weaknesses, 85% of the portfolio has some sensitivity to equity downside which again, was fine in 2022 but not during the few fast declines that occurred during the back test. 

I have no argument about this combo being optimal but it is valid. Something could go wrong with a buffer fund or index based derivative income fund but that hasn't happened. Market cap weighting obviously hasn't malfunctioned but has cut in half a couple of times this century and while that's not a malfunction (repeated for emphasis) cutting in half is a rough thing to endure. 

Trying to apply any of this to real life, putting 35% into one value fund like VTV is not terrible. Maybe it would lag market cap weighting and other factors or maybe not, no way to know but the structural risk is pretty much null. If you want to do something substantial with buffer or floor ETFs, I would suggest breaking that up into funds from different providers. It's not that I expect something bad to happen but where there are derivatives and complexity, there's no harm in diversifying issuers. 

One last chart about managed futures that I thought was interesting in terms of capturing performance dispersion. 

The chart only covers 15 months back to MFUT's inception. QMHIX and MFUT are both relatively volatile implementations and the difference is huge. Over the next 15 months, maybe MFUT will outperform by that much, there's no way to know. Most clients have exposure to managed futures through BLNDX and another fund that is just managed futures. Managed futures is great but if you want to go heavy, use more than one fund. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Deeper Dive On Equity Factors

We've talked several times about the challenges of using multi-factor funds, most recently here. I believe factors can be effectively blended together but it probably makes more sense to do it yourself than buy a multi-factor fund. One point I didn't emphasize in the most recent post but have talked about before is that blending factors together in one fund can result in all the moving parts diluting the multi factor effect such that you end up closer to market cap weighting than what you originally intended. 

QVML which targets quality, value and momentum is 39% tech and 11% communications compared with 37% and 10% respectively for iShares S&P 500 (IVV). Other than iShares MSCI USA Value (VLUE) which is 38% tech (due to the huge run up in Micron), there aren't too many value index funds that heavy in tech yet somehow, QVML is supposed to give access to value? 

Finominal did some research on different ways to access multi-factor strategies. 

Combination models blend together stocks from each factor so if you built a multi factor strategy with two or three funds you'd be building a combination model. Intersectional means picking stocks that score well on all of the factors that a fund is trying to access. 

Copilot says QVML is a combination fund and that Goldman Sachs Active Beta (GSLC) which adds low volatility to quality, value and momentum, is intersectional. 

Um,

And the results are similar to each other and the S&P 500.

Yes, GSLC lagged behind the other two but that chart doesn't recreate the result that Finominal got. The SPMO/SPHQ/SCHD combo we've played around with here and that I've used in place of domestic market cap weighting in client accounts, has differentiated a little better than the above with almost 150 basis points of improved CAGR and noticeably lower volatility but not dramatically lower. 

Kind of related, ETF IQ reported that ETRACS is closing two ETNs that seem interesting. They have no assets to speak of but still interesting. MTUL is 2x momentum and USML is 2x low volatility. I tried to find a 2x low volatility fund for a blog post but USML didn't pop up. I think it was Cliff Asness that talked about leveraging up low volatility equities. 

SSO which is 2x SPY has tended to track double the reference index over longer periods (it's not infallible) so it is interesting to see MTUL and USML not do that very well except for the volatility on MTUL versus MTUM.

Going year by year there were a couple of instance where they did get very close to the 2x the result.

The idea is interesting but the result this way a little less so.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.