RSSB
Return Stacked Global Stocks & Bonds ETF
Mentions (24Hr)
0.00% Today
Reddit Posts
Mentions
>also given the studies Which studies? I can point to some showing benefits of also including small caps. Factor investing starting points: * https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/factor-investing.asp * https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/fidelity/fidelity-overview-of-factor-investing.pdf (PDF) * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-black-hole-of-investing/ * But be aware that factor premiums can take a while to show up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/comments/1hmbwuw/what_every_longterm_investor_should_know_about/ Notice that in the table in the CBS link, small value and small blend beat out every category of large cap. >that I’m not in the best place to have many options financially right now VOO just feels like the safest bet for me especially being that all my investments are long term plans I'd argue that for one fund portfolios, there's several funds that would place above VOO. Especially for long term. VT, RSSB, target allocation index to name a few. >10% QQQM QQQM currently sits in the large growth area. But see what tends to be recommended by the factor investing links I provided above (hint: not large, not growth).
Mostly either RSSB or FZROX + FZILX (these 2 in a ratio that is within reasonable rounding range of VT: I believe VT is currently about 36 or 37% international, so I aim for FZILX to be between 35 and 40%).
An upward line is going to have a lot of all time highs. [https://dorseywright.nasdaq.com/research/bigwire/2025/10/28/10-28-2025/the-sandp-has-hit-40-record-highs-this-year](https://dorseywright.nasdaq.com/research/bigwire/2025/10/28/10-28-2025/the-sandp-has-hit-40-record-highs-this-year) \- The S&P has notched an all time high 100 times the last 2 years. There's always a bubble, something that's going to burst "any day now", something that's going to "return it to the norm". A pretty common logical fallacy people make is that if something hits an all time high of say 100, we mentally think "OK, it'll return down to 80 which is the norm" and there's no reason to think that 80 is the norm. My "advice" if you're risk averse and still want to invest would be to get into something like VT or RSSB which is the entire global marketplace. If it drops, anything else would have dropped also. Further, and I think about this a lot, holding cash and not "getting in" is not a 0% return, it's a -3% return thanks to inflation, and sometimes larger.
Watch/listen to the "what's in your personal portfolio" playlist from Excess Returns. Many managers employing the same tactics, many doing even more. Can still use leverage to squeeze in more alternative assets through vehicles like RSSB.
Personally I'd just go all in on RSSB. Best of both worlds. If the market tanks again like it did in April, switch it out and add in a bit of QQQ. Or do nothing. Up to you.
Not for me for someone else. I do get it. I’m more interested in understanding how RSSB and RSST align longterm.
Thanks for your contribution. Really interested in RSSB/RSST as a long term based on back testing as a portion of the amount.
The point of gold to me though isn't for my 20% gold to beat the S&P or get me through some sort of apocalypse. ...it is that the gold price (hopefully) won't crash the same day/week/month the S&P does, or ideally people will buy it and it will go up when the S&P goes down or if the US screws up royally. Then I can re-balance and use it to buy stocks low. Stocks have much better long term expected returns, but if you are 100% in stocks you can't take advantage of any downturns and can get screwed if you need money when things are down. In that theoretical scenario where stocks are down 50%, gold is down 10% (or up 20%), and my roof caves in, then its great to have the gold to sell and not the stocks. Gold and bonds are the two best set and forget hedges for the average person. Now, one can argue that bonds are better than gold, but gold is my hedge against the US blowing up the bond market somehow with its escalating debt and leadership problems. I also use some funds with slight leverage (GDE, RSSB) to layer the bonds and gold on top of 100% stocks so theoretically I am not sacrificing the returns of going 100% stocks. My total leverage is only 1.6% and most of that is on the gold/bond side. This year I implemented it and I am up a few % on the market, which I know is just noise and means nothing, But I am curious to see how it does when there is a real recession.
If i have to choose that, I'd pick RSSB and Brk-B RSSB gives you effectively 100/100 VT/IEF exposure (100% global stocks, 100% intermediate duration treasury bond exposure via futures and swaps). Hedges drawdowns, and will have positive carry in a typical rising yield curve environment. Amply diversified in a single ETF that rebalances itself. The stock is BrkB simply because its functionally a private credit exposure. They have a balance sheet of businesses that are privately owned by berkshire like BNSF and Geico and such. Their use of insurance float gives them an effective upper leverage bound if theres ample market opportunities. Berkshire has bee very similar to the market over the last decade and stands as a contrast to the big tech heavy global market cap, despite berkshire riding the Apple wave. They didnt rebound as fast as SPY after lockdown, but they also went up during liberation day while spy went down. If I had to pick one single company, berkshire is basically a private company diversified ETF plus discretionary US beta exposure via big names like coke and apple.
It isnt worth it, because you bring no information thats different from the market. You cant "train to be a trader". Vast majority fail, and those who do are niche super smart algo quants. If you need to catch up to some future spending goal, then unfortunately your only way to dial up compensated risk past 100% is leverage, which comes with costs and danger for an emotional person. For example, instead of being 100% VT, you may need to be like 45% SPUU (2x SPY) / 55% ex-US, for 145% equity exposure, something akin to that. Or utilize short box spreads to buy more stable leveraged instruments like RSSB (100/100 VT/IEF) but 1.5x exposure for 300% exposures to VT and IEF.
I would get rid of RSSB and USMV/QUAL and just add to your other positions. Given that you're still young, you don't really need bonds.
Combination of GDE, PPA, RSSB and AVNM Diversified with gold, bonds, international and defense. Pretty much hedges against most of destabilizing events and gives higher returns than SPY alone or VT alone due to slight leverage of about 1.5x which is proven to be healthy long term. Optimal is 2x but that’s too much for me personally.
> Does the same hold true with one that’s based off a market etf like spy? The same concept applies, but shouldn’t show up to the same degree for a broad-market index vs a more-volatile single stock as the underlying. (Likewise for a 2x leveraged fund vs a 4x leveraged fund.) > I’ve always been a voo and chill guy but would a leveraged etf based off the s&p or spy be worth considering for a long term hold? Those funds come with a disclaimer that they should not be held for periods longer than an intraday trade. Any use of leverage long-term should involve asset class diversification (i.e. bond exposure with rebalancing) to reduce risk of total loss. Funds like NTSX or RSSB provide leveraged exposure to stocks + bonds (not an endorsement; carefully consider the risks & invest only money you could afford to lose).
I'd start here: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio The bonds are the part that adjust risk level. More bonds equals less risk. Alternatively, a target date (index) fund is effectively the 3 fund concept in a single wrapper, managed for you. They are designed to be "one and done," the only thing you hold. They're fully diversified internally for you. These can be found with expense ratios as low as 0.08%-0.12% for the Fidelity, iShares, Schwab, and Vanguard index based ones. The target date and target allocation funds typically are not recommended for taxable accounts but are fine for tax advantaged. Just about every company would be represented in either the US total market or international market sections of that, or VT (2 letters) covers both stock roles in 1 fund. Then if 100% stock isn't enough for you, there's factor investing (I think I provided those links in another reply already) and possibly the use of certain types of leverage (I myself wouldn't use the 2x or 3x daily, but rather the "returns stacking" ideas like RSSB or NTSX/NTSI/NTSE but you can look into the different types yourself).
RSSB was my buy today for long-term. I also bought more TSLQ. Hopefully we drive TSLA to the coffin.
This is like RSSB except the interest is essentially tax deductible as losses, the stock slice is smart-beta, and I add some alternative assets too. Idk what returns they have but I'm certain I am way ahead of them too.
It’s not a bad idea if you believe that amount of leverage is prudent. RSSB does the same thing absent the additional turn of leverage.
A common sensible approach is to just use UPRO or SSO to juice your US exposure, and then diversify with alts. Like, RSST gives you 2x by giving you 1:1 SPY/Managed futures, or RSSB, which is 1:1 VT/IEF (essentially), or NTSX gives you 90/60 SPY/IEF. Instead, you can get a way higher volatility contribution from longer duration bonds, which is similar to buying that bond leverage but without the leverage costs. For example, long duration behaves like TYD but without embedded leverage costs. This is by far, in my opinion, the way to go, especially for younger investors. Youth can handle vol, and buying even as much as 2x leverage on raw equities has been shown to be more optimal than unlevered equities in papers like Ayer's and Nalebuffs research on leverage, even in the circumstance that you wipe out in an event like the GFC and start again from zero. I prefer a less crazy approach, and take traditional portfolio construction wisdom and simply add modest leverage to it, slide out on bond duration to the long end, and diversify with managed futures. I get global equity exposure trend following funds, long bonds, and its all great. The three asset classes are uncorrelated to each other, they all have positive real expected returns, and they should help crutch each other when tail events like 2022 (stock and bond simultaneous bear market) occur, or GFC (huge stock bear market butressed by bonds and MF) similar to dot com too,
Absolutely, this is 100% the best way to use LETFs in my opinion. My long term buy and hold (with quarterly rebalancing) portfolio in my IRA is ~1.6x leveraged, using UPRO to get me more exposure to US beta, and the space that opens up in my portfolio lets me buy long term treasury bonds, international equities, and managed futures funds. I love the concept of NTSX/I/E and RSSB, my only gripe is their target duration on their bond futures. They mostly hit durations similar to IEF (~7yr effective duration). I want longer duration, so I do it myself with UPRO, small cap value funds, managed futures funds (CTA, KMLM, etc), and then I use GOVZ and ZROZ (effectively the same thing, ~26yr effective duration STRIPS) for my long term treasury bonds. Rebalance agnostically, ride into the future, hope for the best. That diversification (to managed futures, bonds, and international) has really helped during this 2025 so far.
1. You shouldn't buy QQQ anyway, as it isn't an adequately diversified index fund. 2. 3X leverage is probably too much in the long term, although there is a chance it could work. Not worth the risk. 1.5X to 2X is adequate for a risk tolerant investor to hold long term. 3. For the hundredth time, no you do not. The drag can work in your favor. UPRO (3X SPY) has performed close to 5X SPY from inception in some time frames. If you don't want a leveraged ETF, you can also take a margin loan, but then you'd have to pay interest, and could get margin called, which is not ideal. Something like an unpaid mortgage with very low interest qualifies as a source of good leverage. 4. Again, leverage has time diversification benefits over an investor's lifetime. Young investors with a good risk tolerance and safe future earnings are making a sensible decision when they leverage a well diversified global equity portfolio. 5. By the way, there are ways to use leverage to keep your risk constant for higher amount of return, by leveraging a stock/bond portfolio (something like RSSB). For 4 and 5, please remember that diversification, over both time and uncorrelated asset classes with positive expected return, is a free lunch.
Fair enough. Just looking for a good growth opportunity with more stability. Kinda curious how people feel about RSSB l, just recently found out about it
Thinking of dumping my AMZN shares for reasons. Up about 20%. Should I roll that into something like RSSB instead?
50/50 (or the more commonly suggested 60/40) would be the best "risk-adjusted" return. When people overweight stocks they are taking more equity risk to hopefully increase return. Instead of overweighting stocks, another idea is to take a 50/50 portfolio and use leverage to achieve better risk-adjusted returns. Look into the ideas behind the etf RSSB which has 100/100 exposure.
Appreciate the knowledge and insight! I'm really only interested in leverage with this idea so I'll do some more research on synthetic longs. Right now my portfolio is 75% RSSB 25% GDE which is roughly giving me the exposure of: US Equities: 66% International Equities: 25.3% Treasuries 77.5% Gold 22.5% I guess my goal would be to try and translate this portfolio using options as opposed to LETF. Using Total World Market cap weighted + Treasuries + Gold ETFs and a mix of options for leverage I'm still on the fence with gold which is why I didn't include it in the above post. But thats a whole other discussion....
You keep saying this year, but I don’t care about this year, or the past 5 or 10 years. My retirement date is around 25 years from now. What does better this year or next year means about as much to me as what did best in 2001 or 1995, or 1929. RSSB is not an active fund, not really. It literally holds VTI and VXUS just like you do for its stock holdings at 90%. It just uses the other 10% cash to leverage intermediate treasury futures and a slight amount of stocks to make up the other 90% and 10%. In my personal opinion, if you are going to use leverage intermediate treasuries are about the safest thing you can use it on except for t-bills. However, I am not hyping up this particular fund or saying everyone shouldn’t invest it. In fact I encourage people to read for themselves. https://www.returnstackedetfs.com/rssb-return-stacked-global-stocks-bonds/ You are right 2022 would have been terrible for that fund. But prior to that? You would have to go back to the 70s or 80s to find a year that was nearly that bad. If this was a discussion in 2009, I would be lecturing you on how the US is lagging international. The point is this is to hold something that you can DCA into and has a good chance to beat a total market fund. Guaranteed? Of course not, but the stacked returns of both 100% VTI and 100% intermediate treasuries minus the fees and cost of leverage may very well beat the market, at least in my opinion. You might undershoot, but historically during many periods stocks and bonds beat 100% stocks, so 100% stocks and bonds will probably out perform 100% stocks. However, I may very well be wrong, do what you think is best. I just decided this was how I wanted to save my money, and ultimately we are all just making bets. You are betting holding the world market will provide the best returns, and I am betting that holding the world market while leveraging intermediate treasuries and tilting to US and international small cap value will be better. Only time will prove one of us right. If safety is paramount then your way is best, because by definition you will get market returns, nothing more and nothing less.
I also diversify internationally (VTI+VXUS for tax loss harvesting purposes), and VT has also outperformed both of your funds this year. Problem with bonds is they can crash at the same time as stocks like they just did in 2022. Even if there is a crash before I retire, the long timeframe will almost certainly result in stocks outperforming in the end. The only consideration for bonds is to reduce sequence of returns risk in early retirement, but even that can backfire. Also, rebalancing doesn't help 80/20, it still underperforms. Having capital to buy the dip doesn't make up for missing out on stocks' superior gains for years and years. Backtest it over any 30-year time period. "in many timeframes" must refer to shorter periods. Cost of leverage can become very expensive, and if you have it in a taxable account you won't be able to easily switch out of it. >even RSSB alone will beat the market in my opinion over 20-30 years Someone tell Buffet, he famously bet nobody could pick and active fund that could beat the market over 10 years.
If you’re actually asking do 50/50 RSSB and AVGV. It basically equates to 100% stocks, 50% bonds with slight use of leverage. Diversified across the world, value tilt, slight small cap tilt. It will probably beat the market slightly over 30 years. If you have to pick just one do AVGE or AVGV and call it a day.
Leverage isn’t evil but margins are. There’s other leverage strategies like NTSX/I/E or RSSB which are very reasonable. Maybe check those out or another returns stacking strategy fund
Anything might… but TQQQ is not a good long-term investment for a number of reasons most notably being volatility decay due to its daily reset. All other reasons to avoid TQQQ would be the same but heightened due to 3x leverage to why an investment in QQQ(M) is nonsensical. Those reason include arbitrary exclusion of financial companies, investing based on a stock exchange listings, and overweight of tech (many fail to understand that this increases uncompensated risk). If you’re looking to include leverage in a long-term portfolio then return stacking is really the only viable option. So funds such as NTSX/I/E or RSSB
RSSB would be just as good considering age.
AVGV actively manages its holdings to focus on value investing, most actively managed funds don't beat the market over time so careful with this. RSSB is using a fairly new investing strategy that relies on prolonged low interest rates and low inflation. It's popular on Reddit and the Boglehead forum, but isn't widely accepted by investment managers. Basically, I'd exercise a great deal of caution using such a unique strategy.
My Roth IRA is 45% RSSB, 45% AVGV, 5% managed futures. I don’t have any unique insights or analysis but it’s definitely a sane, /r/Bogleheads approved thesis with a lot of potential upside down the line. Just make sure you’re ready to hold AVGV and RSSB through any downturns and don’t second guess yourself if they lag VT for the next decade or more.
Read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/comments/1fbi6uc/is_leverage_1x_good_and_if_so_whats_the_best_way/) It basically comes down that you can outperform the market with moderate leverage, but in order to keep drawdowns tolerable you should hedge with bonds or managed futures. You could build your own with something like UPRO+TMF (+VXUS+VOO) or a more direct NTSX+NTSI+NTSE (1.5x 60/40 > 90/60), or RSSB (100/100). Rebalancing is needed, oftentimes done on a quarterly basis. [Illustrative backtest](https://testfol.io/?d=eJy9kEFLw0AQhf%2BKzHmx27SmEBAv4smDgggiJYzZTVzd7NbZbaqE%2FHfHVGqxBHOpe9rhDe9981qorH9Ce4OEdYCshRCRYq4wasgABGin9qat2qCFbCr5CUD1khtXWozGO8hKtEELKDA8l9ZvIJM%2FQ16SfmOfB41kP9iNvLXGVfnGOPW1m8pOwMpTLL01nnEeW3BYf2cb1%2BgQL01jFEOxGmnNUaSZH12hr365R1O8atq6bP%2Bs3sdgahZXmgrtYn9GtxSgCCuG7cQucXp69n6Syslcjs%2B%2BXXM9%2Bq%2F4i%2BtzNt%2BHSPvg3dadjZEOt%2BYDpMnxOJMRlMkYxr7NhZzM%2FqHNxag2Z8NtHoszGUGZDDMuu08EwzUP)
I count it as a blessing that my 401k hosted at fidelity lets at most half of my assets go to "brokerage link". Its still within the 401k envelope and tax treatment, but you get the flexibility to invest like its an IRA! So, my mutual fund side just holds down the fort with 80/20 FXAIX/FTIHX and on the other side I can go deep small cap value and use leverage, like RSSB for 100/100 VT/treasury bonds.
Cap gains distributions are based on 2 things: the success of the assets the fund owns and the turn over rate of the fund. RSSB is an actively managed fund that does a lot of leveraged investing, as such it's very likely to issue cap gains every year. AVGV on the other hand focuses on keeping turnover low, making cap gains less likely to be sent out. A passive index fund is even less likely to issue gains. VOO for example basically never issues gains. Also, tax efficiency has to with how a fund distributes funds, not how large the distribution is. Because of the way they are structured mutual funds force tax activity of other investors on to everyone. ETFs are designed to do the opposite. So, one ETF isn't really more efficient then the next.
How do you figure out how much an ETF is likely to distribute? For example I'm invested in both RSSB and AVGV would like to determine which is more tax efficient and should belong in my taxable brokerage.
I'm looking to go 50/50 RSSB and AVGV ETF's, split between a Roth IRA with approximately 160k and an individual brokerage with 80k. How would I determine which fund would be more tax efficient and should belong in the individual account?
I'm looking to go 50/50 RSSB and AVGV ETF's, split between a Roth IRA with approximately 160k and an individual brokerage with 80k. How would I determine which fund would be more tax efficient and should belong in the individual account?
The sensible answer : vanguard life strategy 60 https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/investments/vanguard-lifestrategy-60-equity-fund-accumulation-shares/price-performance The fun answer: 50/50 split RSSB and DBMF. Gives you 50% world equities, 50% treasure exposure (via futures) and 50% managed futures (hedge fund commodity trading strategies). Yes that is 150% so 50% leverage built in to buy bonds. Backtests show similar performance to s&p 500 with a fraction of the drawdown. If you don’t have access to US based ETFs you could achieve something similar with 60 40 NTSX and the IMGP DBi Managed Futures Fund. Downside is ntsx is only S&P on the stocks side, and the leverage is less.
Is RSSB still leveraged 100/100 stocks/bonds? They advertise it as a fund that gives you a $1 exposure to stocks and a $1 exposure to bonds for every $1 invested. Sounds great, but they updated their prospectus to say: > \[f\]or each dollar invested in the Fund, it provides about 90 cents of exposure to the Fund’s global equity investments and about 60 cents of exposure to investments in the Fund’s U.S. Treasury futures strategy.
> I am okay with the risk since I intend to hold it longer term. I'm more focused on not having overlap. I don't think overweighting the US is taking more risk. Arguably it's the exact opposite. > Feel free to drop your ideal portfolio. RSSB *would* be the ideal "core" of portfolio, and I'll probably buy into later when it's a bit older and more established. For now I use NTSX instead of VOO or VTI and mix it in with AVUV and DFAX.
Use of leverage in my portfolio. It took me a while to come around to the idea because leverage has historically exacerbated market crashes and caused all kinds of problems for investors. But rather than using risky margin loans or individual options, the new breed of ETFs that can give retail investors access to low cost leveraged treasury bonds via futures contracts in their portfolio, without sacrificing space for stocks, are very clever and advantageous. I am talking about funds like **NTSX, NTSI, NTSE, and RSSB** (not 3x daily leverage UPRO, TMF etc). Many investors can say that they are aggressive and hold 100% stocks and you can be like yeah I am 90-100% stocks too, but I am also 60-100% bonds. That’s a similar amount of risk/volatility, but with higher expected returns due to better downside protection. These strategies are apt to be less appealing to people these days because of the inverted yield curve and 2022 being the worst correlated decline of stocks and bonds in half century, but their long term expected performance is solid. Judiciously leveraged investing is a proven strategy with hundreds of years of data.
RSSB. 100% stocks at global market caps (basically VT) and 100% intermediate treasuries for 100/100 exposure.
Vanguard does allow NTSX/I/E and RSSB, but I think those are the only ones, and they are only leveraged on the bond side.
International stocks, small cap value, risk parity leveraged funds (RSSB, etc), maybe REITs? Many options to explore.