I've done many fundamental things right, such as getting a good job, investing in retirement as early and as much as possible, and not getting a divorce. Once I had worked a decade and switched jobs, I was able to gain full control over my investments by rolling over my 401k into an IRA. I followed conventional investment advice until I reached 40 and then followed unconventional advice getting to the $5MM invested (no real estate) mark by age 50. All of this by working a W2 job.

When I invest for income, the backtesting of the plan has been robust. For $1MM invested initially, here are some milestone numbers over Q413 thru Q321.

Total Plan Income ($): 1,726,697
Average Monthly Income ($): 18,567
Mini Tech Wreck Q418 Ending Balance ($): 1,022,637
Covid Crash Q120 Ending Balance ($): 1,019,652
Plan Ending Balance Q321 ($): 1,927,293
93-Month Principal Growth (%): 92

That time period was chosen because it's where we have actual data for the ETFs involved (including TQQQ). Using index-reaction multipliers you can simulate further into the past using proxies. In the extended crash that took the Nasdaq-100 down 81% from 4398 in Q100 to 833 in Q302, the math would have taken TQQQ to zero. The results hinge on if you believe ProShares would have implemented measures to keep the fund from getting delisted. Whether TQQQ bottoms out at a dollar or a penny doesn't matter much when you've come down that low from its peak of $130.14 in Q100. At that point, whatever you have invested in TQQQ is low -- so pick a 'lowest allowed bottom price' for TQQQ and simulate.

Here are the results from Q497 to Q403 simulating the Dot Com Crash (assuming a TQQQ bottom of $1.00):

Total Plan Income ($): 1,430,316
Average Monthly Income ($): 19,866
Plan Ending Balance ($): 954,709
72-Month Principal Growth (%): -5

Anyone who went through the Dot Com Crash would take negative five percent. Granted, the simulation is just that and imperfect, but encouraging.