Rational pricing of leveraged ETF expense ratios

Alex Garivaltis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10436-022-00408-9
2022-04-12
Annals of Finance
Abstract:<p class="a-plus-plus">This paper studies the general relationship between the gearing ratio of a Leveraged ETF and its corresponding expense ratio, viz., the investment management fees that are charged for the provision of this levered financial service. It must not be possible for an investor to combine two or more LETFs in such a way that his (continuously-rebalanced) LETF portfolio can match the gearing ratio of a given, professionally managed product and, at the same time, enjoy lower weighted-average expenses than the existing LETF. Given a finite set of LETFs that exist in the marketplace, I give necessary and sufficient conditions for these products to be undominated in the price-gearing plane. In an application of the duality theorem of linear programming, I prove a kind of two-fund theorem for LETFs: given a target gearing ratio for the investor, the cheapest way to achieve it is to combine (uniquely) the two nearest undominated LETF products that bracket it on the leverage axis. This also happens to be the implementation with the lowest annual turnover. For completeness, we supply a second proof of the Main Theorem on LETFs that is based on Carathéodory's theorem in convex geometry. Thus, say, a triple-leveraged ("UltraPro") exchange-traded product should never be mixed with cash, if the investor is able to trade in the underlying index. In terms of financial innovation, our two-fund theorem for LETFs implies that the introduction of new, undominated 2.5<span class="a-plus-plus inline-equation id-i-eq1"><span class="a-plus-plus equation-source format-t-e-x"><span class="mjpage"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" width="1.808ex" height="1.509ex" style="vertical-align: 0.019ex; margin-bottom: -0.19ex;" viewBox="0 -576.1 778.5 649.8" role="img" focusable="false" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><g stroke="currentColor" fill="currentColor" stroke-width="0" transform="matrix(1 0 0 -1 0 0)"> <use xlink:href="#MJMAIN-D7" x="0" y="0"></use></g></svg></span></span></span> products would increase the welfare of all investors whose preferred gearing ratios lie between 2<span class="a-plus-plus inline-equation id-i-eq2"><span class="a-plus-plus equation-source format-t-e-x"><span class="mjpage"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" width="1.808ex" height="1.509ex" style="vertical-align: 0.019ex; margin-bottom: -0.19ex;" viewBox="0 -576.1 778.5 649.8" role="img" focusable="false" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><g stroke="currentColor" fill="currentColor" stroke-width="0" transform="matrix(1 0 0 -1 0 0)"> <use xlink:href="#MJMAIN-D7" x="0" y="0"></use></g></svg></span></span></span> ("Ultra") and 3<span class="a-plus-plus inline-equation id-i-eq3"><span class="a-plus-plus equation-source format-t-e-x"><span class="mjpage"><svg xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" width="1.808ex" height="1.509ex" style="vertical-align: 0.019ex; margin-bottom: -0.19ex;" viewBox="0 -576.1 778.5 649.8" role="img" focusable="false" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><g stroke="currentColor" fill="currentColor" stroke-width="0" transform="matrix(1 0 0 -1 0 0)"> <use xlink:href="#MJMAIN-D7" x="0" y="0"></use></g></svg></span></span></span> ("UltraPro"). Similarly for a 1.5x product.</p><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" style="display: none;"><defs id="MathJax_SVG_glyphs"><path stroke-width="1" id="MJMAIN-D7" d="M630 29Q630 9 609 9Q604 9 587 25T493 118L389 222L284 117Q178 13 175 11Q171 9 168 9Q160 9 154 15T147 29Q147 36 161 51T255 146L359 250L255 354Q174 435 161 449T147 471Q147 480 153 485T168 490Q173 490 175 489Q178 487 284 383L389 278L493 382Q570 459 587 475T609 491Q630 491 630 471Q630 464 620 453T522 355L418 250L522 145Q606 61 618 48T630 29Z"></path></defs></svg>
What problem does this paper attempt to address?