> One study I remember showed that young investors should use 2x leverage in the stock market, because – statistically – even if you get wiped out you’re still likely to earn superior returns over time.
And the linked paper says:
> The mistake in
translating this theory into practice is that young people invest only a fraction of their
current savings, not their discounted lifetime savings. For someone in their 30's,
investing even 100% of current savings is still likely to be less than 10% of their lifetime
savings
This makes a lot of sense to me and says what I haven't been able to about my own risk tolerance. What is OPs counter to this? That the paper's conclusions are flawed, or that no 20-something could execute it?
> One study I remember showed that young investors should use 2x leverage in the stock market, because – statistically – even if you get wiped out you’re still likely to earn superior returns over time.
And the linked paper says:
> The mistake in translating this theory into practice is that young people invest only a fraction of their current savings, not their discounted lifetime savings. For someone in their 30's, investing even 100% of current savings is still likely to be less than 10% of their lifetime savings
This makes a lot of sense to me and says what I haven't been able to about my own risk tolerance. What is OPs counter to this? That the paper's conclusions are flawed, or that no 20-something could execute it?