>This fund returned 47% in its first 6m and over 400% prior to the downturn.

>Returns like that are not asymmetrical and can only be produced with leverage

This is simply untrue. Just because the path to doing so is much more clear in hindsight doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

Sandisk is still up 110.82% in the last 6 months, and that's after a drawdown that's now approaching 50% from peak. Over the last year, they're up 2730%, and again, this is after the drawdown. Zero leverage.

▲

gizajob 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The skill in the stock market, and the value of any kind of investment fund, is producing good returns over an actual long-term period. YOLO-ing once before imploding in one of the biggest bull markets ever can be done by any gambling degenerate out there.

	▲	anonym29 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I don't disagree at all with what you're saying, but it has nothing to do with what I said, which is strictly a refutation of the assertion that it's only possible to achieve a 47% return in 6 months or 400%+ return in ~2 years with leverage.

▲

HeyBigE an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Uhhh.. you think this isn't driven by options trading? Which is, by definition, leverage.

	▲	anonym29 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's not at all what I said. What I said had nothing to do with the mechanics driving broader market behavior. What I said was strictly a refutation of the assertion that it's only possible to achieve a 47% return in 6 months or 400%+ return in ~2 years with leverage. That's a demonstrably false assertion. If you bought Sandisk, $SNDK, not options but the actual underlying equity, with no margin, just fully purchased the position with cash, you're up 110% if you bought six months ago (down from over 200%, but 110% in 6 months is still enormous), and you're up over 2700% if you bought a year ago.