What's the case against being 1.3x levered in PA if you're in your 20s?

Question

If you're in your late 20s and own a bunch of SPY and diversified stocks, why shouldn't you be 1.3x levered?

2.0x levered seems too aggressive given there are 50% drawdowns to the S&P occasionaly.

But you'd need a 70% drawdown to get liquidated at 1.3x leverage (unless I'm messing up the math).

Obviously if the US is currently where Japan was in 1989 it would take a long time to recover but even then you're only in your 20s so the vast majority of your income can and will be invested over time and will be dollar averaged into the S&P over the next few decades so you should be fine?

I feel like 1.3x is the "wrong answer" and that anything more than 1.0x leverage is the "not sensible". What am I missing though?

I guess you miss out on buying dips? If you were 1.0x levered and there is a dip you can lever up and buy? But the flipside to this...is that if there isn't a dip for a year or two you are missing the upside when you stay 1.0x levered.

Just a question I've been pondering given my age and my inclination to feel 1.0x is underlevered. (Have a separate 401K that is something like 96% stocks, 4% fixed income, managed for me).

Answer 1

Use of leverage by young investors is part of a strategy called lifecycle investing, which helps diversify over time (most people are underexposed to the stock market in their 20s). It is a reputable strategy as long as you clearly understand the implications of leverage and have a plan for managing the risks.