ETF Scam - Evidence Revealed





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Sep 9, 2009


Sorry for any poor grammar in this article. Grammar is by far not my expertise.
The stock market is very speculative in my opinion. Am I to believe everything that has been told? I don't work behind the scenes where the money flows in big numbers, but if they refuse to tell us the casino similarities I feel there has to be more.

Jan 29/08 UUP (1x Long Dollar) $23.40
Sep 9/09 UUP - $22.90 (-0.50, -2.1%)

Jan 29/08 UDN (1x Short Dollar) $27.81
Sep 9/09 UDN - $27.84 (+0.03 +0.1%)

--Interesting how these two numbers do not match on a single yield stock. The percentages are close, but not accurate.

Triples and double yield funds have been known for this to happen based on their design. The truth is the design of % gains and losses do not match. Usually if one of these gains 3%, the other may lose 3.03%. The problem is this: The up and down percentage between the two ETFS should be designed that the higher percentage gain a little more in #s than smaller. If going from 100 to 105 is 5%, the opposite should be 4.76% with the calculation of (5/105). Instead when one of these ETFS makes 5% the other usually loses a share over it and maybe lower. (usually greater)

The 3x financials show us a great example of this.
3X Long & Short Financials
Since Nov 21/08 - FAS (Long) $80.00
Sep 9/09 FAS - $76.03 (-3.97, -5.0%)

Since Nov 21/08 - FAZ (Short) $1452.00
Sep 9/09 FAZ - $23.42 (-1428.58, - -98.4%)

FAZ and FAS were never that high at the time. It is because they gave these ETFS a reverse split to make them look bigger. These babies are designed to lose long run. If you know they were designed to be losers long run, is that a fair rule to have with these funds? Yes it would be, and the reason for that is the extra gains can be huge if you have good timing. However, if you wanted to be safe and not play the volatility would it be better to play the single short financials instead ?

No, this game seems rigged when you have the following:

Financials Long XLF and Short SEF for July 11-08 to today

XLF Then - $18.68 Today - $14.50 (-22.4%)
SEF Then - $79.70 Today - $46.36 (-41.8%)

We see the longs down a lot and the shorts more! This is because of the higher volatility that comes in this sector and most likely price fixing. last week XLF lost 3.59% on a day where SEF gained +3.29%.

By theory if XLF losses 3.59 that would be an equivalent of losing 3.59 on 100 (Drop to 96.41.)

Therefore 3.59 gain on 96.41 works out to 3.72%. This should have been the gain based on XLF losses. Instead it gets 3.29% which is a significant penalty when there are 52 weeks and around 250 trading days in a year.

The Gold isn't as affected (I wonder why LOL) as both the single and double gold are only down under 1% each since the February top. Still, they are both down.

Not mentioned in this video is USO (which tracks OIL).
USO JULY08 HIGH - $119.17
USO FEB09 LOW - $22.74
CURRENT - $36.94

JULY08 HIGH - $146.65
JAN09 LOW - $32.70
CURRENT - $71.73

The Oil Comex has done better than double from its January bottom where USO has only gained around 50% and their bottom was a month later. This means that it has been a part of serious hits. Those investors whom played for oil going higher have been quite frankly screwed for playing USO.

The comex needs to double to get to their current highs, and USO needs to gain more than 200% to get back to their levels.

Thank you for reading this article and watching my video

  • Category

  • License

    • Standard YouTube License


When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...