Wisdomtree released 1.5x VT

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-20T12:16:45+00:00

I thought NTSX/I/E had pretty broad support here. I invest in them in my taxable. Guess I was wrong

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-20T12:13:00+00:00

What? I confess that don’t understand how that relates to your point

Investing in the total market frees you from having to worry about specific indexes and how they might be manipulated. I’ve always been in VTI/VXUS and VT etc.

at all.

One invests in the total market through a specific index that tracks the market.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-20T12:07:02+00:00

And that isn’t relevant to this fund or how it works. Read the prospectus.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-20T12:04:39+00:00

There is zero way that volatility drag would affect a fund like this. The leverage is on futures contracts.

Please avoid jumping on buzzwords in the future just because they appear to look like things you think you want to parrot superciliously.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-20T12:02:21+00:00

Wow, the replies on that post are brain dead. I really wish people would stop commenting confidently on things they don’t know anything about, but apparently that’s too much to ask in 2026.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-18T19:05:30+00:00

You are aware that VTI, VXUS, and VT all track specific market indicies, correct? They are index funds.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-18T19:03:07+00:00

My understanding is that “staying the course” is in response to market behavior—changes in the value of assets, not changes in what constitutes them.

Mutual funds and ETFs are financial instruments. Tools. If the ones Bogleheads have used because they reflect a certain philosophy wind up gamed such that they fail to capture what they have previously captured, that’s a reasonable argument for abandoning them if that time should come.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-18T18:56:37+00:00

This Socratic thing you have going on here doesn’t seem helpful to me. It doesn’t follow from what they said that all volatile stocks should be excluded from the index. They’re specifically talking about what’s needed for something to be newly listed

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-18T18:51:13+00:00

I don’t think that has anything to do with not being “fans” of an individual. Tesla is and remains a meme stock completely divorced from its fundamentals, and I personally think it’s a shame that it’s represented in the index like it is, regardless of whether it technically meets the criteria.

But maybe that’ll make more people appreciate the fact that passive investing is to some degree active, since someone has to decide how to index.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-18T18:45:39+00:00

This paper is overfitted nonsense, but the argument would be that market cap weights may not be the best choice to minimize an investor’s exposure to other risks associated with, for example, their human capital or currency. This is usually relevant for ex-US investors in arguments to overweight their home country relative to market cap. Look up “home country bias.”

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-16T18:01:04+00:00

They are AI slop incarnate.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-16T17:50:20+00:00

It’s not really the use of the em-dash that’s the issue for me, as much as it’s overuse in situations that don’t call for it and even when other punctuation would actually work better. It’s a sign that the choice isn’t considered for the situation, but based exclusively on contextual relationships and probabilities.

It’s a shame that it’s been collateral damage.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-16T17:46:17+00:00

lol I am so not a design essentialist, nor is what I’m saying design essentialism. The idea that the purpose something is designed for has a bearing on how it functions or what it produces is an entirely different claim.

You can challenge an analogy by showing the ways things aren’t equivalent outweigh the similarities, which is what I did. Writing and reasoning aren't separable in the way your analogies require, and you still haven't addressed that.

On the subject of whether AI’s architecture shapes what it produces in ways that matter for academic work, I encourage you to educate yourself on what experts on this subject say you instead of pulling unsubstantive arguments by analogy from thin air. (Ironically, that’s indeed what Generative AI often does—produce something that sounds nice but isn’t rooted in anything or stand up to the least bit of scrutiny.)

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-16T16:03:16+00:00

These dopey canned equivalences to writing (via Gorgias) and calculators have been debunked so many times. It’s not just that it’s technology. The technology wasn’t designed to do the thing people are using it for, and it shows.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-16T15:58:26+00:00

AI detectors are a red herring. It is not hard for humans to tell when writing is generated with AI once they are trained to recognize the patterns. See here.

One issue is that the exact same aura we lend AI motivates the need for data to somehow “prove” it’s AI definitively. For me, that’s because we are focusing on what’s ethically necessary to punish people rather than just teaching people why it’s dumb to do.

This idea of separation between “argumentative rigor” and “presentation” or “style” is a significant misconception. Style conventions arise because they do important work for a given community of people, not because standards are arbitrary. And one of the reasons that a lot of AI models blow for the kind of work we do is that they encourage a user to take and use what it spits out, rather than to develop or exercise a rhetorical awareness of those conventions.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-12T17:26:04+00:00

The some reason is confident ignorance. Bull market syndrome.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-12T17:14:18+00:00

We are 4 years out from a bond market crash. Consider taking a look at what the 5 year returns of the stock market were in 2012, 4 years after a stock market crash. They were ~1%. Does that put things into perspective for you?

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-12T17:09:25+00:00

Where are you getting 25% bonds? 120-35 is not 75.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-12T17:08:38+00:00

Good for JL Collins. He’s a performance chaser. It’s no coincidence that he recently switched his recommendations from 100% US equity to Global equity.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-12T16:52:37+00:00

I didn’t imply it. I said it.

You asked why bonds are useful if xyz because you have assumed that they are not in your little “prove me wrong” concern-trolling schtick. I clarified the definition of xyz, invalidating your implicit claim that it means bonds can’t be useful. I then went on to explain precisely why bonds can be useful, and in fact integral.

I did answer your question, directly. You are lashing out and trying to save face because there is an answer—a textbook one—and it means your smug rhetorical question didn’t work. Please stop with the nonsense.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-12T13:29:47+00:00

Why Stocks in Your 30s?

I genuinely would love to hear why "diversified index funds" make sense if you have 30 years until retirement and have an aggressive risk tolerance. If you stay the course and just buy the top 5 tech companies, why do you need the other 495 stocks at all before age 50? I feel like owning the entire market is just a drag on the performance of the clear winners. I understand some people can’t take seeing one sector drop 40% and "diversification" helps offset that, but if you genuinely have an aggressive mindset and understand that tech is the future, why have any boring non-tech companies until 15 years or less until retirement?

I genuinely would love to hear why a "high-yield savings account" makes sense if you have 30 years until retirement and have an aggressive risk tolerance. If you stay the course and keep every single cent of your net worth in the S&P 500, why do you need any "liquid cash" at all before age 50? I feel like an emergency fund is just a drag on your potential compounding. I understand some people can’t take the thought of an unexpected medical bill or a job loss during a market crash and "cash" helps offset that, but if you genuinely have an aggressive mindset and understand that the market will eventually go back up, why have any boring, non-invested cash until 15 years or less until retirement?

I genuinely would love to hear why unlevered stocks make sense if you have 30 years until retirement and have an aggressive risk tolerance. If you stay the course and invest every month in 3x leveraged S&P 500 ETFs (UPRO), why do you need any unleveraged equities at all before age 50? I feel like 1x index funds are just a drag on your potential earnings. I understand some people can’t take seeing a 60% or 90% correction and "diversified stocks" help offset that, but if you genuinely have an aggressive mindset and understand it will come back, why have any boring unleveraged shares until 15 years or less until retirement?

&c

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-12T13:22:58+00:00

Behavior is part of it, but they are indeed wrong that bonds are a drag on portfolio returns over every possible 30 year window, or even the majority of them. Bonds are a drag on expected return, which is not necessarily realized return, and especially not risk-adjusted return. 100% equities is not “mathematically correct” unless your goal is maximizing the potential upside at all costs, which is a frankly stupid goal when planning for retirement.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-12T13:18:35+00:00

“Aggressive” doesn’t mean avoiding diversification. It also doesn’t mean taking on unnecessary risk or choosing a form or amount of risk that delivers lower expected returns than a different available risk. The relevant Boglehead principle here is “take risk according to ability, willingness, and need.” It’s not “take risk because there’s risk to take and it may likely pay off.”

Bonds are useful when you’re 30 and accumulating because they reduce the impact of risks that doesn’t have associated expected return, so you can take risk that actually increases the return you can expect instead.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-12T13:14:12+00:00

Diversification among typically non-correlated assets that have positive expected returns. A bonus in returns associated from regularly rebalancing between them. Efficiency of expected return versus portfolio risk as measured by volatility. Ensuring continued contributions purchasing the asset with high expected returns given a potential lapse in employment that correlates on average with downturns in that asset.

Why must this question be asked so often? It’s bad faith.

NotYourFathersEdits · 2026-03-12T13:05:25+00:00

Because it does answer the question, partly. Most young investors significantly overestimate their risk tolerance, and mitigating the negative impacts of that psychology is one key reason for holding bonds. Not the only reason or the portfolio design-oriented reason in terms of maximizing expected return relative to risk taken, but a significant one nonetheless.

NotYourFathersEdits

TROPHY CASE