A capture ratio of AIM vs Buy/Hold is always fair. It might not be AIM-favorable for certain periods but the comparison is a way to judge what has been happening during the time frame. The 2011 dip was a more typical event than the 2008 Panic so has validity.
Here's a more finite view and some things to ponder:
2011 Downturn and how Basic Materials reacted from various suppliers...
Symbol share increase PC increase AIM acct value change
BMPSX +32.3% +23.7% -19.4%
FXZ +13.4% +11.2% -7.3%
IYM +25.1% +19.2% -13.1%
PYZ +12.1% +14.3% -6.5%
You can see that the deeper the dip, the greater the share increase and also the greater the Portfolio Control increase was during that bearish year.
The point of today's exercise was to show that not all "Index Funds" are the same even in the same business sectors. During the following year the AIM accounts rose nicely, but not uniformly for 2012:
2012 AIM account gains
Symbol Gain in AIM account
BMPSX +14.4%
FXZ +14.9%
IYM +7.3%
PYZ +25.6%
The seasaw nature of the 2012 year didn't do as much good for the 1.5 leveraged fund as it did for the tamer ETFs. IYM which follows the Dow Basic Materials sector did the worst because it has the most moving parts (Good, Bad and Ugly). PYZ which at that time was more fundamentally filtered did the best by quite a margin. (remember it is no longer filtered by fundamentals, but by "momentum" from Dorsey Wright) In this group PYZ fell the least and rebounded the most. BMPSX fell the most and rebounded about average.
Subsequent years have given bias to the 1.5x fund as the bull market continued. In 2011 it bought the most shares and raised the Portfolio Control bar higher for future profits. But, we have to be fully cognizant of the double edged sword.
