ETFs / Evergreen
Twice the daily return is not twice the two-day return
A two-step example explains the reset built into many leveraged ETFs.
Calculate a daily-reset path without treating leverage as a fixed multiple of a multi-day result.
Read the period in the objective
A leveraged ETF that targets twice an index's daily performance has a daily objective, not an unconditional promise to deliver twice the index's cumulative return over any chosen holding period. The SEC's investor bulletin highlights this distinction. A reader must identify the product's stated period before multiplying returns. Resets, compounding, fees, financing, and execution can affect results. The following example assumes perfect daily tracking before all costs solely to isolate the compounding mechanism. It is not a real fund's history, a market prediction, or a strategy recommendation.
Make the index finish where it started
Begin with an index level of 100. On day one it rises 10% to 110. On day two it falls by 10 ÷ 110, approximately 9.0909%, returning to 100. Notice that a 10% gain followed by a 10% loss would instead finish at 99. Percent changes use the current base, so equal-looking percentages do not automatically cancel. Here the carefully chosen second-day decline makes the index's cumulative two-day result exactly zero before rounding. This establishes a clean reference for examining a different daily exposure.
Apply the twice-daily target
Start the fictional fund at 100. Twice the first day's 10% gain is 20%, taking the fund to 120. Twice the second day's approximately 9.0909% decline is approximately 18.1818%. Applying that decline to 120 leaves approximately 98.18. Thus the index returns to its starting level while the simplified fund loses approximately 1.82%. The result follows from applying daily multiples to changing bases. It does not require fees or an inaccurate manager. Those additional real-world factors can create further differences from this deliberately simplified path.
Do not turn one path into an absolute claim
A different path can produce a different relationship. If the index gains 10% on both days, its two-day gain is 21%, while the idealized daily 2× fund gains 44% because 1.20 × 1.20 = 1.44. Twice 21% is 42%, not 44%. This second example prevents the first from becoming the false rule that daily compounding must always reduce leveraged returns relative to a simple multiple. Direction, magnitude, sequence, and holding period matter, while real funds also face costs and tracking imperfections.
Build a path worksheet
Create columns for day, index daily return, index value, stated fund multiple, idealized fund daily return, and fund value. Multiply each row's starting value by one plus its daily return. Keep fees as a separate assumption and do not assume losses are limited to these examples. Read the actual prospectus and local product rules, especially for complex or inverse exposures. Continue with the bond early-sale lesson to compare another case where a familiar label fails to specify the return an investor actually experiences over a chosen holding period.
A global perspective
Original financial education with hypothetical examples; no personalized investment, tax, or legal advice. The named country is the example jurisdiction, not a proxy for its continent. International-framework articles name that scope explicitly.
Sources & further reading
SEC Investor.gov — Updated investor bulletin: Leveraged and inverse ETFs ↗Sources checked Oct 18, 2026. Examples are original illustrations. No affiliation with cited organizations.
Make the idea stick.
Mark complete when you are ready. Reaching the end alone does not mark a lesson complete.
What assumption in this guide would change the result in a different situation? Revisit the example and explain that change in your own words.
Explore etfs →