El colapso del ETF de la tasa de apalancamiento: ¿por qué estas 5 inversiones perdieron más del 80% en 2025 y qué riesgos arrojan a la luz?

This sharp decline stands in stark contrast to the previous section's focus on market volatility drivers. Five funds have suffered catastrophic losses, , representing one of the most brutal market dispersions observed. These are concentrated in the leveraged inverse ETF category, designed to profit from sector declines but fundamentally misaligned with long-term holdings due to their structure.

The MicroStrategy-focused ETF (MSTR) is a primary driver of these losses, its collapse reflecting the broader tumble in crypto markets. Alongside it, funds targeting surging gold miners and artificial intelligence-powered semiconductors have been hardest hit. . While SOXL, a triple-leveraged , is a prominent example within this group, it is not the only severely affected fund. These inverse leveraged ETFs suffered devastating compounding losses from their daily rebalancing mechanisms, which amplify losses in volatile markets over time, especially when the underlying asset moves strongly against the position. This erosion of principal is not a bug, but a built-in feature of their design.

The purpose of these funds – short-term speculation on sector dips – tragically backfired over the holding period. Their performance highlights the inherent unsuitability of leveraged and inverse ETFs for passive investors or longer-term strategies, as their returns diverge significantly from simple multiples of the index due to volatility decay and expense ratios, leading to substantial value destruction even before fees.

The Mechanics of Failure: Why Leveraged Inverse ETFs Imploded

promise amplified exposure to market declines through daily resetting mechanisms. But their intended purpose as tactical short-term tools became a liability when held through volatile 2025 markets. These products use derivatives and debt . While designed for , holding them through sustained bull markets triggers compounding losses. . This erosion happens because resetting forces constant rebalancing - each daily gain for the underlying sector mathematically erodes the ETF's value.

. Record inflows forced frequent trading to meet demand, widening bid-ask spreads and amplifying volatility. This created vicious feedback loops: rising markets caused losses, triggering redemptions that forced more selling. Meanwhile, expense ratios and compounding distortions eroded returns even when markets moved favorably. Industry experts warn these products are fundamentally unsuited for passive holding, but the inflows encouraged misuse by both retail and institutional investors.

operates independently of market direction - it's a structural feature of daily resetting. Performance erosion occurs whether markets rise or fall because the compounding effect mathematically reduces geometric returns over time. The top five worst-performing leveraged ETFs collectively saw over $8 billion in outflows as this structural erosion manifested. Even without directional movement, the daily rebalancing creates a friction that chips away at value. For long-term investors, this combination of compounding losses and volatility drag transforms tactical instruments into permanent value destruction.

Market Volatility & : Amplifying Risk Signals

Investor appetite for amplified market bets surged in 2025 as volatility spiked. in September alone, driven by tactical traders seeking higher returns during turbulent events like central bank decisions. , yet they carry hidden dangers. , .

Simultaneously, regulatory conditions shifted dramatically. The SEC withdrew 17 rule proposals in 2025, extending compliance timelines and easing restrictions on retail access to private funds and digital assets. This deregulatory environment created space for rapid product expansion but reduced safeguards.

The combination proved hazardous. Deregulation enabled broader distribution of complex leveraged products, while heightened volatility amplified their inherent risks. Liquidity strains emerged as traders chased amplified bets during sharp moves, creating feedback loops that could rapidly destabilize markets. Industry experts warned these products are unsuitable for long-term holding, yet their accessibility grew under lighter rules, increasing systemic exposure to volatility-driven failures.

Investor Implications: Risks and Withdrawal Signals

from leveraged ETFs like ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ), ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD), and Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bull 3X (SOXL) year-to-date. This massive outflow followed . These outcomes underscore a fundamental risk: leveraged products are structurally unsuited for long-term holding.

. , . Even sophisticated traders face challenges navigating these path-dependent instruments. Meanwhile, .

Regulatory changes add another layer of uncertainty. , signaling reduced oversight. While this deregulation may expand access to new products, it simultaneously removes protective guardrails. Investors now face amplified volatility risk without commensurate regulatory safeguards.

The combined evidence paints a cautionary picture. , . Even as deregulation creates new opportunities, the structural flaws in leveraged ETFs demand extreme caution. For , these products represent significant exposure to forces that can accelerate losses far beyond ordinary market swings.