The 60/40 fairness–bond portfolio stays a extensively used benchmark for long-term asset allocation, regardless of ongoing debate about its optimality (Pham et al., 2025). For a lot of households, nevertheless, the problem lies not within the framework itself however within the quantity of capital required to implement it. Restricted investable property, a need to keep away from express borrowing, vital publicity to residential actual property, and the necessity to preserve liquid reserves usually constrain the flexibility to totally fund a standard allocation.
Leveraged ETFs provide another. Slightly than rising threat, they permit households to attain a desired threat publicity with much less deployed capital, enhancing the administration of liquidity, real-estate leverage, and broader balance-sheet constraints. As illustrated under, leveraged ETFs mixed with money holdings can approximate the chance traits of a standard 60/40 portfolio whereas avoiding margin accounts, private credit score strains, or different types of household-level leverage.
By separating market publicity from capital dedication, this framework preserves liquidity and monetary flexibility whereas sustaining a well-recognized asset allocation profile.
Whereas many practitioners view leveraged ETFs as unsuitable for long-term use, this evaluation is aimed toward monetary advisors prepared to look at that assumption within the context of capital-constrained family portfolios.
Motivation: Asset Allocation on the Family Stage
For many retail traders, portfolio building takes place throughout the constraints of the family steadiness sheet, the place housing publicity, mortgage leverage, employment revenue threat, and liquidity wants form possible funding selections. Many households are already structurally leveraged by actual property. Over latest a long time, rising dwelling values in developed economies have elevated internet value whereas concurrently concentrating threat in illiquid property. In consequence, traders usually discover themselves obese actual property and underweight liquid monetary capital.
Conventional types of monetary leverage introduce further dangers that many retail traders are unwilling or unable to bear, together with margin calls throughout drawdowns, mounted compensation obligations on credit score strains, and behavioral pressures that may result in poorly timed de-risking or pressured liquidation during times of heightened volatility.
In distinction, when used thoughtfully, leveraged ETFs—whose leverage is contained on the fund degree fairly than the family steadiness sheet—permit traders to separate market publicity from capital deployment, offering higher flexibility in family portfolio building.
Methodology and Portfolio Development
The next evaluation evaluates whether or not a portfolio constructed from leveraged fairness and bond ETFs mixed with money can approximate the return and volatility traits of a standard 60/40 fairness–bond portfolio, with out counting on margin, private borrowing, or different types of household-level leverage[1].
Benchmark and Devices
The goal allocation is a standard 60/40 portfolio consisting of:
- 60% publicity to the S&P 500
- 40% publicity to US Treasuries, represented by a length of roughly seven years
To implement these exposures, the evaluation employs the next devices:
- A hypothetical ETF offering 3 times the day by day return of the S&P 500
- A hypothetical ETF offering 3 times the day by day return of long-duration US Treasuries (20+ 12 months maturity; length ≈16), with place measurement scaled to attain the goal portfolio length
- Money incomes the in a single day price
Though the leveraged Treasury instrument has an extended underlying maturity, its portfolio weight is scaled such that the ensuing efficient length of the mixed portfolio approximates the seven-year goal.
Price and Financing Assumptions
To raised approximate real-world efficiency, the next assumptions are integrated:
- Annual administration expense ratio (MER): 1%
- Fund-level borrowing price: in a single day price + 50 foundation factors
- Money earns the in a single day price
Portfolio Development Course of
Slightly than fixing nominal portfolio weights, the technique targets secure efficient market exposures:
- An fairness publicity equal to roughly 60% of the S&P 500
- A Treasury length of roughly seven years
At every month-end, portfolio weights are adjusted to keep up these publicity targets. Fairness and bond ETF allocations are scaled to attain the specified fairness publicity and portfolio length, with residual capital allotted to money. Month-to-month rebalancing is required to offset publicity drift arising from the day by day reset nature of leveraged ETFs.
As a result of day by day reset nature of leveraged ETFs, efficient exposures drift over time, necessitating periodic rebalancing. Over the pattern interval, the ensuing common portfolio weights are roughly 20% within the leveraged fairness ETF, 15% within the leveraged Treasury ETF, and 65% in money.
Noticed Outcomes and Comparability to 60/40
The technique is again examined utilizing month-to-month information from 31 December 2022 by 31 December 2024 and evaluated towards a standard 60/40 benchmark (Desk 1). Over the pattern interval, the leveraged ETF plus money portfolio delivers cumulative returns broadly corresponding to the benchmark. Extra importantly, realized volatility intently tracks that of the standard 60/40 portfolio, indicating that the exposure-targeting framework is efficient in replicating first-order threat traits.
Desk 1 (Abstract Statistics)
Monitoring Variations
Durations of divergence between the 2 portfolios are primarily pushed by:
- Each day leverage reset results throughout unstable markets
- Embedded financing prices inside leveraged ETFs
- Month-to-month rebalancing frequency
- The prevailing money yield setting
These components introduce monitoring error however don’t materially alter the portfolio’s total threat profile.
Determine 1 (Annual Returns)
Determine 2 (Allocation %)
Distributional Results
Whereas imply returns and volatility are comparable, the leveraged portfolio displays fatter tails relative to the standard 60/40 portfolio. This displays the nonlinear return dynamics launched by day by day leveraged devices, particularly during times with excessive volatility.
Determine 3 (Return Distribution)
Sensible Dangers and Limitations
Whereas the framework illustrates a capital-efficient method to publicity administration, it includes essential trade-offs that warrant cautious consideration. Leveraged ETFs are designed to trace multiples of day by day index returns; over longer holding durations, their efficiency turns into path-dependent as a consequence of day by day leverage resets, with volatility drag rising nonlinearly as leverage rises (Pessina and Whaley, 2021).
As well as, the evaluation depends on hypothetical leveraged ETFs, and realized efficiency of precise merchandise might deviate from modeled outcomes, significantly during times of market stress. Lastly, though common volatility might align with a standard 60/40 portfolio, using leverage will increase tail threat, implying the next probability of maximum outcomes.
Determine 4 (Drawdown)
Capital Effectivity as Portfolio Design
Leveraged ETFs are ceaselessly dismissed as unsuitable for long-term traders as a consequence of volatility drag and path dependency. This evaluation reveals that, when employed inside a disciplined and exposure-managed framework, leveraged ETFs can as an alternative operate as instruments for enhancing capital effectivity fairly than rising portfolio threat. By replicating the chance traits of a standard 60/40 fairness–bond portfolio with considerably much less invested capital, this method permits households to protect liquidity and mitigate focus arising from residential actual property publicity. Whereas cautious implementation and ongoing threat consciousness stay important, the framework highlights an underappreciated software of leveraged devices in trendy family portfolio building.
References
All information in Tables and Figures sourced from Bloomberg
Pessina, C. J., & Whaley, R. E. (2021). Levered and Inverse Change-Traded Merchandise: Blessing or Curse? Monetary Analysts Journal, 77(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/0015198X.2020.1830660
Pham, N., Cui, B., & Ruthbah, U. (2025). The efficiency of the 60/40 portfolio: A historic perspective (Analysis Report). CFA Institute Analysis & Coverage Middle. https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/analysis/stories/2025/performance-of-the-60-40-portfolio
[1] This framework is meant for monetary advisors and different funding professionals evaluating household-level portfolio building and is offered for academic functions solely. It doesn’t represent a advice or client-specific steering.
