Dark...

👹👹

Well leverage is very tricky, many leveraged ETFs are constrained to a large sweep of allocations. If your a personal trader using leverage you can make more pointed allocations. For example, I use roughly 2x margin for my equities portfolio, I own 83 different positions that I have evaluated myself. I find this to be much more successful with my YTD up 41%. But leverage is certainly scary, when the bottom fell out in March 2020, I lost 32% of my portfolio in 4 days. Be careful with leverage and stay away from windows.

go ahead and use it 🤪

Leveraged ETFs aren’t even massive leverage…

just take on more leverage (infinite) and you will be fine

Hahaha 😊

Here is what you do. Put all your money in 401ks and IRAs. Then invest everything else on margin. If it goes down who cares? Say you owe 100k to the brokerage, here is the cheat code out: bankruptcy. Vankruptcy cant touch 401k or IRA, so you are good to go. Once you are done and clear, withdraw new seed money from 401k and IRA and repeat. Just make sure to stuff some tendies in their on your rise up, so you dont run out of seed money.

@@JRmarksmen I'm pretty sure, that he is from germany, so no IRA and 401k 😉

you mean 5%

Too late for me, I am x20 my positions, thinking it would make sense, but I will be more cautious next time, just waiting for the SnP500 to gain me something then I'm out

I’ve returned 178% this quarter using soxl, tqqq, upro, spxl, and their inverse counterparts. Plenty of swing traders and intraday traders using these. Also many experienced traders will buy 15-30% TQQQ for their IRA, tax haven for larger gains. Id like to point out, that during the 2008 or 2020 crashes, you could have sold out of your long bull ETFs or simply hedged them on the weekly, daily with an inverse until market bleeding had stopped.

@@aaronpatterson935 They are great for small window swing trades.. I usually swing TNA, SOXL,TQQQ, GUSH, FNGU, UTSL, SOXL, FAS and EURL. BUT, people need to get in and get out and not let greed take over. Id highly advise people to practice with just swing trading the sectors and indices first. If they cant successfully do it with no leverage then they should have no reason to believe they can do it with leverage.

@@undauntable6456 BLOK too

@@AmikYoungDon never heard of it gonna read into it today, cheers 👌

Isn't there a arbitrage opportunity when you short the 2x etf and go long the double amount of the normal etf? (Sorry for bad English)

@@danielsich3362 And this sort of thing is the main use of the product. It was created as a tool for funds and investors to use on the "short term" to arbitrage. It almost always loses if held for too long as a normal recession would wipe these things out. There is a bit of survivor bias on these funds too, because the funds that had this kind of leverage and went bankrupt in the Great Recession are gone and no one hears about them anymore. All they see is the track record of funds established since then for the most part and that is misleading.

Patrick and plain bagel colab? 👀👀

In a way the markets kind of depend on people to take a lot of risk. In some ways it seems a very viscous cycle, as there is not much incentive to create stability.

Sorry Pat, but no it isn't. The S&P 500ncan't drop more than 20% in a day without the market being completely shut down so a 3x S&P 500 fund would never reach the >33.3% drop needed to be completely wiped out like it sates in the video. Also, do a search for how a 3x S&P 500 etf performs over the last ten years. vs. a non-leveraged etf like VOO does. The leveraged etf wins hands down. When looking at long term hold of leveraged etf, volatility is your enemy, but a leveraged etf based on a low volatility index with the S&P 500 can be fine. There are also fund and etf that do 2x leverage with monthly rebalance as well.

That's taken by a British gas driller.

one exists already, called ARKK

@@unnamedny arkk is the opposite of a party pooper? It's a party freak

He’s partially funded by big finance. They won’t be telling you the good stuff!

In a certain sense, volatility drag is always negative. Let me explain. Assume that the value of the index moved continuously and that a leveraged ETF tied to that index were rebalanced at every infinitesimal moment meaning its price's logarithmic derivative were always 3 times that of the logarithmic derivative of the index's value. Such an ideal leveraged ETF would experience zero volatility drag. Its value growth would be raised to the 3rd power so if the index grew by a factor of 2 over some time period the value of the ETF would grow by a factor of 8. If the index grew by a factor of 10 over some period of time the ETF would grow by a factor of 1000. A real leveraged ETF that's balanced daily and not at each infinitesimal moment will *always* lag behind this kind of idealized ETF. The more the index moves between rebalancings the more the real leveraged ETF lags behind this ideal.

​@@seneca983 That is not really true, in fact that is the opposite. The least time you rebalance leverage, the least amount of volatility drag you will get. For example, a hypothetical leveraged ETF which never rebalance will not have more volatility drag than a non leveraged counterpart (if you exclude the possibility of a margin call which is the ultimate volatility dragged outcome). And when you say volatility drag is always negative... negative in what sense ? Expected return with a leveraged ETF or traditional leverage is the same. What volatility drag does is skew positively the distribution of terminal wealth you will get, and thus lowering your median outcome. Average return is still 3x index - costs no matter how you rebalance. Assuming no mean reversion of course.

@@4CiiD3 "The least time you rebalance leverage, the least amount of volatility drag you will get." No, it's not how frequently you rebalance. Rather it's how much the price moves between rebalancings. The hypothetical ideal ETF rebalances at each infinitesimal moment so the price only moves an infinitesimal amount between rebalancings (assuming continuity which isn't realistic either) so there's no drag. "And when you say volatility drag is always negative... negative in what sense ?" I already explained that. The hypothetical ideal is that returns get raised to the 3rd power (with 3x leverage) if there's no volatility drag at all. Due to volatility drag, a real leveraged ETF will always lag behind this ideal. The less the index moves between rebalancings (i.e. the less there's day-to-day volatility if rebalancings happen daily) the closer the leveraged ETF will get to this ideal but it will never reach it. "Average return is still 3x index - costs no matter how you rebalance." It's (generally) not 3x over multiple days (assuming daily rebalancing).

@@4CiiD3 Volatility always affects daily leveraged in a negative way. Simple example: Assuming a year has 257 trading days and yields 8% return. Then you want each single day an increase of 0.03% in the underlying for your leveraged etf. Any deviations from that (also known as volatility) will produce a worse outcome. @seneca983 No, there will always be volatility drag. The reason is that you apply a linear factor to something that doesn't scale linearly.

@@bultvidxxxix9973 No No No No, For example if you have multiple volatile days to the upside in row or multiple volatile days in a row to the down side, you are better off with the leveraged ETF than your "traditional" leveraged strategy with constant dollar amount in margin. Only when there are ups then down, you get more volatility decay.

Keep those ETFs in there, this video isn’t data driven. I’m a director of an equity fund and allocate 25% of my personal portfolio to leveraged strategies.

@@seanhutcheson7638 if you're the director of an equity fund, why are you spending so much time in the comment section of KZfaq trying to convince other people of your findings for free? I'm sure your shareholders wouldn't be happy knowing how you choose to spend your time LOL

@@vancejoy3724 Might wanna ask Cathy Wood why she also shares all her trades and findings for free on KZfaq and via her email list 👀 her shareholders must be very cross with her! She must just be satiating her inflated ego! Or maybe there’s something more to it...

@@seanhutcheson7638 Wood does so on her own KZfaq channel, creating original content. Not in the comment section of somebody who disagrees with her strategy 😂

@@vancejoy3724 I do the same but the content is private :)

Are you sure about number 1? Circuit breakers have failed in the past. I think the possibility of being wiped out in another but worse Black Monday will always be there. Highly unlikely, but a real risk.

seems like there is a lot of risk that is outside of your control with 3x, why not instead buy a few companies within the index on leverage that you think will outperform after a dip or crash?

"Markets don't drop 34% in a day." It doesn't have to be in a single day to wipe you out. 2008 saw the S&P drop 57% from its previous high.

@@evanwheeler7687 And the SSO (2x SP500) was down 81% and not 100%. If correctly rebalanced and used with uncorrelated assets, it might work.

​@@evanwheeler7687It does have to be in a single day, because the leverage is resetted on a daily basis.

@Wary of Extremes Don't know what you mean, ”if you use...”. That is just applied math. I don't think I'd say ”tendency to zero though.” If there were no growth then it would eventually round to zero. But if you invest in a profitable company (or fund) then by definition income exceeds expense and that means the value does increase. The profitable company is like a bank account that receives more in deposits than withdrawals, before you consider the company may be growing it's markets, growing it's profits. As for ”leverage less than one” that means in this context that you have less than 100% stock exposure. Think holding 10% in cash. Now you are 0.9x.

Same

Imagine being so proud of your ignorance.

I always say it, if the market is ever down so bad that it's not worth it to buy stocks because it won't recover, you wont care about paper money. Market goes up over time and that's pretty much a given ignoring something like an asteroid hitting earth, why not bet on it something thats been true the last 100 years?

Okay, but would it be True for like 20-30 years? Not many people could See the return after 40 years, not to mention gains after 100 years. Sure, you can buy it for your Kids or something but that Different case I think

@@cyjan3k823 yes, it's true look what UPRO did the last 5 years ( +368.99% )

@@cyjan3k823 PS when it first appear in 2009 UPRO was $2.50 today is $109.07 , you do that math

If TQQQ was around 20 years ago, you'd have lost everything. Although mathematically it would have never gone to 0 (worst daily drawdown was something like 32%) I don't believe it would have remained open after a 96% loss. Even if it did stay open, it would have never recovered from the dotcom bubble, it would be at like one tenth of QQQ.

If you can take in the big swings it is the right investment

Then go all in at once if time in the market beat timing it

nice

That's a crude oil ETF not an index fund ETF. Far more risky

Harder daddy

thats too less. I lost 98.4% thats because I saw my money falling for 10 years straight. And thought that its going to go up by 100000% at some point.

@@Reon89 ;-) same !! My plan is to 💎 hand my lifetime!! Which remind myself never take investment advice from frinds.

In the long term 3x leveraged etfs are good despite all of the things he is saying. They still give you a better return because the stock market typically goes up, its just not 3x. Its about 2x from pre pandemic high to now (which he fails to mention in the video) and 7.5x in the last 10 years (due to compounding). Also, the stock market will never dip 34% in a day.There's other videos about it with more positive opinions. As long as you're comfortable with a volatile position then you're fine holding it.

@@connorspencer4283 depends on what index you're tracking. The S&P500, for instance, is green 53% of days. Other more sluggish economies, not so much.

Both of the comments from Conner and Samson are correct. I did my own research and have my own strategy which I am practicing but its basically investing monthly in leveraged etfs and when the market dips I double down. I back tested my strategy and it did very well BUT and a big BUT at one point in the back test I was down over 70% of my portfolio so if you can stomach that then power to you. Always remember to diversify.

@@connorspencer4283 thank you, could you possibly give me the link for those videos?

It makes a huge difference if you are averaging cost too

Their math is just 1 math that affect the price movement of leveraged etfs. Price movements of stocks are more complicated than just saying a 1% up after a 1% down is a lower value. How about supply and demand for said LETF vs ETF, what if there is 1 share of TQQQ and there are 10 buyers, would TQQQ just go up by 99% after dropping by 99%? There is also no perspectives given, no comparisons to other financial products or derivative. They also forgot to tell you about the downside is limited to nearly 100% but the upside is essentially unlimited. Also, compound interest works its magic on the way up. Sure there are some risk in buying leveraged broad based diversified ETFs and a little extra cost too but so does trading options or any other derivatives.

I can tell you my returns when holding tqqq for 1 to 2 months or more is greater than just holding the qqq for the same time frame. And my friend who held tqqq for a decade can tell you his returns was way greater than mine or yours for any amount of time we are comparing.

If you correctly predict that an index will remain stagnant, yes. But let’s define what a 1/2 leveraged ETF would do by nature. Investing $1000 into one is like investing $500 and keeping the other $500 in cash, and then keeping those amounts equal at the end of every day. Yes, there’s a better chance that it will yield a positive return over a given time period, but the fact that the index itself doesn’t experience decay since it’s not leveraged means it’s probably the best investment without being too aggressive. Basically, choosing between 1/2x and 2x is a prediction of market volatility, and at the point you’re truly able to do that, just gamble your investments into options

@@EthanCowlbeck Your analogy of a 1/2 EFT is incorrect. You're forgetting, the multiples are based on a daily return and so compound daily. If the 1x ETF returned 2% every day for 10 days, your $500 invested would become $500 x 1.02^10 = $609.50. Add in the other $500 you kept in cash and you have $1109.50. The 1/2x ETF would yield 1% per day over the same 10-day period, so your $1000 would become $1000 x 1.01^10 = $1104.60 You could view the choice between a 1/2x and a 2x as a choice based on your prediction of volatility, but there are much better ways to capitalize on correct predictions of market volatility. So again I ask, why is 1x optimal? I'm not trying to predict the future. I just want to know why, if you've already decided which underlying asset you're going to buy, wouldn't you choose some other derivative that yields a multiple return (either more or less than 1) of that underlying instead of just the underlying? Also, this "Decay" talk is a figment. The share price is the share price. If you bought and held 1 share of UPRO in 2011, you own 72 shares of it now. The fund managers don't steal shares. Their fee is reflected in the trading price If the markets stayed perfectly flat, the fund would ultimately go bust. But that hasn't happened in the history of ever, so hedging against that seems very silly. It's also true for every ETF, as that is how funds collect profits from managing the assets.

That's my thinking too. Can't see any reason this wouldn't work in the long term other than the possibility circuit breakers don't work and you are wiped out, which is highly unlikely. Have you bought it yet?

Not really.. there are cases in which an S&P 500 stock ends up gaining money (positive returns) while its corresponding leveraged ETF actually loses money.. Volatility, especially sharp ones, are the enemy.

I have the same question and came to the same conclusion as you. Have you done more research on this?

@@Mr69elco Their math is just 1 math that affect the price movement of leveraged etfs. Price movements of stocks are more complicated than just saying a 1% up after a 1% down is a lower value. They also forgot to tell you about the downside is limited to nearly 100% but the upside is essentially unlimited. Also compound interest works its magic on the way up. Sure there are some risk in buying leveraged broad based diversified ETFs and a little extra cost too but so does trading options or any other derivatives.

That's what I thought, I don't know why many want to limit you from buying these ETFs, as long as you have read and researched what they are about, so go ahead

yeah circuit breakers exist

Correct

What if S&P500 drop -10% for four of five days in a row or something like that, did the UPRO go to zero. Belive me i experienced that with the inverse volatility in 2018 the etf went to zero and i lost 5000$ in one day.

I’m not concerned with the price fluctuations, but I’m trying to figure out if your actual shares can get liquidated somehow w this product?

What did you mean by “rebalance”?

@@DrivenA111 Let’s say you have 2 equities in your account and you aim to have 50% of each. Over time, inevitably one will out perform the other and you will no longer have a 50/50 split anymore. At that point you sell out of the one performing well and buy into the other to get back to 50/50. You can do that on a set interval to keep your risk a bit lower in your account. Consult with a professional because I am not one.

Have you found the answer after 2 years brother?

Because I think Richard might be being a little too harsh on this one. As long as you don’t buy while the 3x etf is near ATH, you should be able to get a good return. Probably only buy during corrections/ downturns, and it should be much easier to make a profit in the long run

True

True I did not understand the math of having 100 QQQ vs 300 QQQ(100 TQQQ) why people say its bad of having more QQQ in the most of the comments

Of course, otherwise it would be an arbitrage opportunity.

It’s useful for reducing counter-party risk in the short term.

Leveraged funds have produced returns of 20% if you simply sell under the 225 day moving average and buy above the 225 day moving average. This strategy was tested all the way back to 1929

@@rowanharley9810 Have you back test this in special situation (such as Japan) where stocks has remain flat/under for more than 20 years? Remember, there is no such thing as a bad looking backtest

I think the point is, mathematically, the market risk does NOT go both ways.

@@rowanharley9810 back testing doesn't take into account that you are a player in the market, making a splash. You weren't in 1929. And there's no way to guage how you would react in the moment to market movements because holding a negative position for a period of time is more stressful than fast forwarding through 100 years of history. And you should ask yourself who were the winners that did benefit? Chances are they were the institution who made those successful trades at the expense of the retailer.

Actually it was 57.2% up over the last 251 days (trading year). And between 0 and 1.5% up for 50% of those days. And between 0 and -1.5% for 37.2% of the negative days. But was between -1.5% and lower for 5.6% of the negative days. So on some days, you would have lost big and would have been harder to recover due to “break-even percentages” being higher. Sorry to bore you but it’s important to know the details behind the stats.

@@urinater I forget where/when I read it but the stat I read was for the previous year. Either way, same result where daily compounding works in your favor just a little.

DCAing into an asset that’s in a downtrend is a terrible idea.

Yes, they put these breakers in place to help panic not cause liquidity issues in the market. It doesn't need to drop 34% in a day though for you to lose most of your investment. Another Great Recession or Dot-Com bubble crash would wipe most of the value out of these funds. We have not had a single year with a consistent bear market downtrend since 2009, which makes these funds look good. But history shows that worse things can happen. If the Fed hadn't stepped in with unprecedented asset buying and Congress with stimulus bailouts, these funds might have gone to zero in 2020. Note that pretty much all of them started AFTER the great recession. Do you think the idea didn't exist back then? No...these funds went bankrupt back then and the product had to catch on all over again in the next bull market.

@@martinlutherkingjr.5582 well doing a lump sum into a downtrend is worse. Most people will agree that long term the market has a net positive outlook so the idea is that your DCAing into a long term uptrend. I just think there’s an argument to be made that DCAing into leveraged ETFs over a long time horizon could mitigate some of the risks associated with volatility & variance and possibly lead to better returns but not sure if they could deliver higher risk adjusted returns.

@@danaphanous I agree you can lose a lot of your investment in a short period of time but you can’t lose all of it. Though you could get very close to 0. That’s why I don’t think this would be appropriate for anyone with a short time horizon or without cash flows to consistently invest but I think there’s potential for it to work for long time horizon investors who are consistently DCAing. I’ve tried to research this and there are several mixed findings. Some people have tried backtesting market returns and found that it leads to higher returns than the base index even through the dot com bubble and 08 but also that it has less risk adjusted. There’s also an interesting paper by some Yale professors about how young investors with long time horizon should use leverage (in general not just ETFs) to invest because it provides time diversification for your portfolio.

@@danaphanous I agree that it worked out best for the 2010s decade and that could be an anomaly of a steady bull market run with little volatility & variance because of the feds expansionary policy but I’m skeptical on the idea that they have no place in the portfolio. I feel there could be some way they could be used to achieve kurtosis

Complete wipeouts are highly unlikely because they're only leveraged to daily movements. Even if the market keeps dropping day after day, the fund is essentially selling off its positions as this happens, so a 33% total market drop isn't going to wipe out a 3x fund (unless that 33% drop happens in a single day).

@@gregloire1 Oh hi, Greg. Fair enough.

@@gregloire1 that being said, the S&P cannot drop 33% in a single day, circuit breakers kick in before then.

If you really know tge game you can play the inverse leveraged ones too ...thats gordon gekko level 💩 though

@@lewissteely927: Yes, I have been shorting inverse leveraged ETFs since 2012. It works; it's how I've made most of my money.

Don't be so sure about the last one. Nasdaq 100 lost 29.93% in a single day back in 1987. It could happen again and end up being more severe. However, I believe the risk is worth it if you allocate a small part of your portfolio and forget about it.

@@ConsumeristScroffacircuit breakers and liquidity would stop the 30%

then use a 2x instead@@ConsumeristScroffa

😂

LUL

You all know that stock is not stable now and it at risk, investing in crypto(Bitcoin, ether etc) is the best now because with the right broker you can invest and make lots of profits

XIV fell 90% and got terminated because it no longer had the funds to short VIX futures, just FYI.

@@samsonsoturian6013 thats the reason why they don't have 3x inverse VIX ETFs. max they have is 2x.That too they only put 75% of the funds into the index. rest 25% money is not used and would be in their reserve. There have been scenarios where VIX went from 30 to 21 in 1 day which is 30% drop. This when leveraged becomes 90% drop. This is what happened with XIV. It wont happen now. I have seen VIX falling by 15% in 1 day but 2x inverse doesn't rise by 30%. it rises by 10%. not even 15%. that's what happening now. We grow from our previous experiences. Do not make assumptions on what happened previously and judge whats happening now.

@@Reon89 there's still no guarantees. Also, there's a difference between the VIX and VIX futures as the latter also fluctuates with supply and demand. And I wonder what would happen to a 3X ETF during a flash crash when its value momentarily goes below zero...

@@samsonsoturian6013 the SEC has circuit breakers if an index falls below 20% in 1 day, so it can’t go to zero in 1 day...

@@senseiadam-brawlstars9465 that doesn't mean it can't fall farther in a week. And it also depends of the ETF as a lot of them are invested in swaps or futures. And ETNs actually don't hold the underlying, so they get terminated all the time (especially last year).

Well, there's an old saying, "with friends like that (friends who would share this vid), who needs enemies." LOL. Read my earlier comment.

What was the reason for selling in jan of 2021 that just sounds silly? the market has done nothing but go up.

Yeah a 99% increase after a 99% decrease is just making ~1 dollar after losing 99 dollars

20% decrease followed by a 20% increase also equals a net negative.

But the market has more ups than down movement and so you will still be gaining even if you want one time correction once in a while however what made these a problem is the fact that every gain, the leverage is repriced and so you take on more debt because the value of ur equity increases instead of those equity gains slowly paying out the debt and de risking your portfolio, If this is a closed fund I'm sure that would happen, you want to be derisked as much as you can while enjoying the gains however since this is an open fund where anyone can buy anytime, the leverage is being used to promote the product, I guess it goes back again to the timing in engaging with this vehicle

@@jacobparks2269 ​ @Jacob Parks Sure anyone can say that. But for example, the TQQQ does not necessarily have to increase the same % after it decreases. The QQQ is the underlying, which is driven by supply and demand and TQQQ basically mimics that for the most part x3. Lets imagine if QQQ was $1 and there are $trillions of $ wanting to buy it do you think it would just go up by 100% after it decreased by 99%? And here you go, this is the part you are missing out buy just looking at a mathematical fact amongst many that is driving stock price movements.

every time I put money into TQQQ, SOXL, and others for a long term my balance goes up. Yet these people can't seem to explain this unusual phenomenon......

@@thealternativecontrarian9936 your anecdotal experience is not nearly as powerful as the backtesting that Peter Chen is referring to, considering you are doing your investing during the longest bull run in market history. I did a spreadsheet test where I created a daily rebalancing 3x leveraged tracker of the S&P and even with the worst possible timing, consistently investing in the 3x leveraged tracker outperformed doing the same in the underlying index, by at least 70%, and in the best case (following the prolonged postwar boom into the early 1970’s) consistently investing in a triple leveraged etf of the S&P 500, had it existed then, would have netted the investor an astonishing 38x greater return than the already impressive returns produced by the market. I’m currently not invested in a triple leveraged account because if you can avoid being in one during a correction you will certainly improve your long-term return, but once the market returns to more rational pricing, I intend to buy and hold SPXL for the long term.

@@ZachTank2009 I am now all in 3x ETFs and see no reason to be elsewhere. When long I like SPXL, TQQQ, SOXL, DPST, and HIBL. Just those five. When short I like SQQQ, SPXS, SQQQ, HIBS, and FAZ. I might add URTY once in a while.

@@thealternativecontrarian9936 i don’t have the stomach for holding triple short positions. I held one throughout April 2020 thinking the market wasn’t done falling and it’s a special hell getting eaten alive while the market rallies, so I have decided that my “conservative” approach is when the market is overvalued (Shiller PE greater than ~35) I buy and hold the base index (VOO) and when the market is undervalued (Shiller less than ~25) I buy and hold SPXL. There’s a deadband in the middle there, which we are currently in, where momentum plays a factor - I currently think the market is headed downwards so I continue to hold my VOO position, but once the Shiller hits 25 im going to be putting all of my efforts towards rolling as much money into triple leveraged long positions as I can, including taking on side hustles, selling stuff, whatever it takes.

@@ZachTank2009 sounds like a decent plan. I've been following a different KZfaq channel that has been excellent at calling tops and bottoms, so I have a general idea on when to stay long and when to short. I watch probably five channels every evening.

Like all things, a product works when the market trends are in its favor. For 10 years the equity market has gone up and the interest rates gone mostly down (causing bond prices to rise). This product will not do well if one or both of those trends reverses.

Correct, i’ve modelled 50 year timeframes.

tqqq lost over 75% of its value in 1 year lmao thats 20 years wasted lol leveraged etfs are only good for short term

you can hold it for the duration of the semiconductor boom. atleast thats my plan.

Unless it is an inverse leverage ETF

sike! there is a derivative for that too, M. Burry just loaded up on bearish inverse ETFs for U.S. bond market. Basically if you can think about a strategy, as obscure as it is, wallstreet b(w)ankers got 10 instruments for it already

if you know that its a bear market then why not put money in the inverse ETF?

@@darius2640 I believe burry loaded up on leaps for tbt.