this is much riskier than just holding. stock prices are about expectations, not necessarily reality. for all we know, everything might spike back up to January 2020 prices the second there's an inflection point in the new infection rate, and you could miss your chance to buy back in.

No. Being in cash is always less risky than being in the market. "Missing a chance" is not what "risky" means.

obvious, bordering on pedantic, point. OP is saying that trying to time the gap up is less likely to pay off P/L-wise than just holding the course

Not in this thread it is not. Stock market threads on Hacker News are about the same level as your doctor uncle trying to explain monads to your artist sister, I'm sorry to say. Words have specific meanings, and this just serves to confuse your average Robinhood or E-trade investor.

Right. This is a "hold the line" situation. Unfortunately, not one aspect of American society suggests that we're going to have each other's backs as a break becomes more and more possible. Therefore, it may be better to assume that it's every man for himself, and grab what you can while the getting's good.

This is why you have a robust social safety net. Not because the liberals and hippies think lazy people are entitled to free stuff; because everything - everything - is built on faith that the bottom won't ruin "you," specifically.

Or hold and hedge by buying UVXY et al

Do not buy and hold leveraged ETFs interday. Buy puts if you want.

Good advice, but the IV on most puts makes them incredibly expensive right now. I prefer shorting the 3x long etfs.

I'm curious, why short the 3x long/bull etfs instead of going long on the 3x bear ETFs?

Two reasons: leverage costs will drag the performance of the 3x to worse than 3x over time, and in big drops there's a chance that the 3x ETF may actually implode like the XIV ETN did a while back. Those work in your favor if you're short but may or may not be worth the cost of borrowing for your situation.

> in big drops there's a chance that the 3x ETF may actually implode

Huh, I didn't consider this possibility because I can't imagine the underlying index (this one's related to the S&P 500) going up enough for that to happen. But then again, I suppose those speculating in XIV didn't expect those volatility spikes either.

For me, though, I figure the downside is capped for the relatively small amount of money I put into this 3x inverse ETF: if the fund goes all the way to $0, then I've only lost the original investment. (But also, if it goes to $0, that's probably a good thing for the rest of my portfolio.)

There's always TVIX for the casino minded players:

  https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/tvix?ltr=1

UVXY?