<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Leverage efficiency · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1101.4548/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1101.4548/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Leverage efficiency — mentioned by kgwgk</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26375467</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1101.4548:26375467</guid><pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2021 12:48:41 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;You may have seen this already: https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4548 Funny stuff. They predict that in aggregate 100% of the wealth is invested in stocks and investing more than that would be suboptimal: the optimal leverage is 1. They &amp;quot;submit the hypothesis to a rigorous test&amp;quot; and find that the optimal leverage for the S&amp;amp;P 500 is around 1, given its volatility. There is a small problem with their rigorous test. They forgot to include dividends: &amp;quot;a real investment in the S&amp;amp;P500 outgrew federal deposits at only 2.0% p.a&amp;quot;. Including dividends would bring the optimal leverage to 2 or 3. But that&amp;#x27;s…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1101.4548/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>q-fin.GN</category></item></channel></rss>
