This article takes about 4 minutes to read

TNA Basics - 3x Leverage on Russell 2000

TNA (Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares) targets 3x the daily return of the Russell 2000 Index. Launched November 5, 2008 by Direxion. Direxion's fact sheet as of June 30, 2026 lists a net expense ratio of 1.05% (1.07% gross), on the high side among major 3x ETFs. TNA's current net assets are published on Direxion's official page.

The Russell 2000 comprises the smallest 2,000 stocks in the Russell 3000, representing U.S. small-cap equities. Its constituents are much smaller by market cap than those of the S&P 500.

Its liquidity is on the higher side among small-cap leveraged ETFs, though its average daily volume falls short of TQQQ's. TNA's defining characteristic is applying 3x leverage to Russell 2000's already-high volatility, making it one of the most volatile major leveraged ETFs.

Small-caps are more volatile than large-caps, and this high volatility amplified 3x creates extreme price swings and severe decay.

Small-Cap Characteristics - High Growth Expectations, High Volatility

The theoretical basis for small-cap investing is the small-cap premium from Fama-French's 3-factor model: small stocks have been reported to outperform large stocks by ~2-3% annually over 1926-2024.

However, this premium has shrunk recently. Over 2010-2024, Russell 2000 is said to have trailed the S&P 500 by a wide margin. Large-cap tech dominance is likely one reason small-cap relative performance worsened.

Russell 2000 annualized volatility is reportedly ~20-25%, 5-7% higher than S&P 500's 15-18%. Some individual small-caps reach 40-60% volatility. Low liquidity means spreads widen dramatically during stress.

Small-caps are also highly cyclical, strongly tied to U.S. domestic economic conditions. They outperform during expansions but underperform more severely during recessions.

Russell 2000 vs S&P 500 Volatility Impact

The critical question: how does the volatility difference between Russell 2000 and S&P 500 affect 3x ETF performance? Over 2015-2024, S&P 500 volatility is said to have averaged ~16%, Russell 2000 ~22%.

SPXL annual decay: -3 × (0.16)² = -7.7%. TNA annual decay: -3 × (0.22)² = -14.5%. Nearly double the decay. This 6.8% annual difference compounds dramatically over time.

With -14.5% annual decay, the underlying must return +14.5%+ just to match 1x. If Russell 2000 returns ~+8% a year and the S&P 500 ~+13%, then 3×8% - 14.5% = 9.5%, which underperforms even S&P 500 at 1x.

This mathematical reality shows that long-term holding of TNA can be structurally disadvantaged. Unless small-cap premium revives to +15%+ annual returns, TNA tends to underperform SPXL.

TNA vs SPXL - Same 3x, Vastly Different Outcomes

Direxion's fact sheet puts annualized NAV returns from inception (November 2008) through June 30, 2026 at 27.27% for SPXL and 10.83% for TNA. TNA has trailed SPXL by a wide margin. Despite the same 3x leverage, the gap in final returns is also large. Much of this gap likely comes from the difference in volatility decay.

In up years, TNA can beat SPXL (e.g., 2020 when Russell 2000 outperformed S&P 500). But down-year losses are larger for TNA, so SPXL comes out well ahead of TNA in cumulative long-term returns.

Compound math illustration: at same +10% underlying return but different volatility (16% vs 22%), 10-year results diverge dramatically. SPXL: (1 + 0.30 - 0.077)^10 ≈ 7.5x. TNA: (1 + 0.24 - 0.145)^10 ≈ 2.4x. The calculation suggests the volatility difference strongly shapes long-term returns.

Investors should not assume small-cap × 3x = maximum returns. The math shows the opposite: higher volatility destroys leveraged returns.

Past 10-Year TNA Performance

Over the 10 years through June 30, 2026, TNA's annualized return is also said to have fallen well short of SPXL's. The gap runs in the same direction as in the since-inception comparison.

Worse, TNA underperformed IWM (Russell 2000 1x) during 2018-2020 when the index was flat to slightly up. Decay pushed TNA to a loss. A leveraged ETF losing to its own 1x index is an outcome investors want to avoid.

Annual return distribution shows extremes, with a sharp rise in 2020 and a large fall in 2022. Timing errors can lead to large losses. Buying at 2021 year-end meant a large unrealized loss by 2022 year-end.

TNA's poor performance reflects the post-2010 large-cap dominance environment. Until this reverses, TNA's relative performance is unlikely to improve.

Can the Small-Cap Premium Be Captured at 3x?

The small-cap premium (+2-3% annually) at 3x gives +6-9% excess return. But Russell 2000's additional decay vs SPXL is -6.8% annually. Net: -0.8% to +2.2%. The premium nearly vanishes.

Furthermore, the premium is not constant. It is said to disappear for long stretches. 2010-2024 was such a period, with Russell 2000 underperforming S&P 500 by a wide margin.

The rational case for TNA exists only if you bet on small-cap premium revival: rate cuts, economic recovery, large-cap tech valuation correction. But timing this is extremely difficult.

Understanding the relationship between base index volatility and leveraged returns is essential for ETF selection. Use compound interest calculators with volatility decay to avoid overly optimistic expectations.