UNG Saga
- Thread starter TraderD
- Start date
it may not be a level playing field landis but it a nice way to get energy exposure. Futures are not level either. I do not think everyone here wants to put the risk on in trading natty futures.. full size or the mini. I ahve bene in and out of UNG about ten times in the last 5 months and it has been very good to me.. same goes for the uso. Only 3-4 trades in the uso. I typically hedge with QG futures or mini crude if trading oil. anyway .. ung is fine to trade.. look at the volume.. if it sucks so bad then tell me.. you think every share of the 37 million average shares traded per day are suckers.. lol.. ung is great and so is the uso as well as dxo. Stop regurgitating crap you read on teh internet about contango etc..
if you like natural gas prices down here.. then buy ung and hold it. no margin calls and you can hold and hold and hold. same goes for oil.. geez.
if you like natural gas prices down here.. then buy ung and hold it. no margin calls and you can hold and hold and hold. same goes for oil.. geez.
landis stop using all the bizz words too! "ponzi" scheme.. it aint no scheme and it sure aint no ponzi scheme. you contradicted yourself when you said it was a ponzi scheme and they a publish the roll dates... a ponzi scheme would never publish to the public what they are or are not doing.. too funny how easily you show your ignorance even though you have like 7000 posts.. maybe you are the ponzi scheme.. lol
rbob in backwardation this year!!!!!!
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/RBOB-Gasoline-From-contango-to-backwardation-18758-3-1.html
rbob in backwardation this year!!!!!!
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/RBOB-Gasoline-From-contango-to-backwardation-18758-3-1.html
You obviously have no idea what you are doing.
In a "contango" futures market such as Nat-Gas, the UNG etf fund is not able to purchase as many futures contracts. Thus, the NAV drops. That is just a basic mathetmatical fact that a loser such as yourself is unable to fathom.
Hence, a fund like UNG needs "new" purchasers of the fund shares in order to alleviate the drop in NAV during the "roll" given the contango spread.
This is basic market mechanics.
But you fail to comprehend it, Port.
By the way, congratulations on your 23 posts today as a brand "new" ET member.
Did the nurses allow you to use the public computer in the lobby today at Bellevue Hospital?
dear Landis.. i am trying deperately to catch up to all of your posts.. i thin kyou must average at least that many or more per day to get yor 7000 number.. lol. ok Ok i bow down now to the KING of ET.. lol it must pay wonderfully. Oh really.. they have to buy more contracts of Ng.. u serious..hmmm... they will be soon enough once the sec approves more shares.. the shorts will exit the longs will enter and ung will be sittign around 17 in a month..
nice to know yo watch all of my posts.. keep watching because bringing you down in almost every post of mine is my new hobby .. you are the new hobby... lol you are a joke
nice to know yo watch all of my posts.. keep watching because bringing you down in almost every post of mine is my new hobby .. you are the new hobby... lol you are a joke
This is almost correct, every time UNG makes a Rollover they lose tons of money in a contango curve. And it is some kind of ponzi scheme for the average investor since a lot of professional traders front-run the Natty spreads everytime UNG has to do a roll like past week.
The fund is a victim of its own size. The manipulation, if you can call it that, is the gaming of the rolls by the UNGâs counterparties. They know when and how much it has to roll; it has become a large and predictable player that, more importantly, has to roll because it has no capability of taking the contract to expiry.
The UNG is more likely to have been holding back prices outside of its rollovers while it was increasing in size. This was certainly the case for the USO. In fact, it was only when the USO began to shed WTI contracts that the rally in crude was unleashed on a larger scale. Of course, the crude market is much much bigger than the natural gas market, so the issue of causation or corrleation should come into consideration.
The question really is, whose selling all the extra futures, caused by the increased size of the etf? Answer: GoldmanSachs and the other big players.
lol.. its not abou tbeing piker .. i am sittign watchin gyou guys immediately answer my posts ..lol.. as i am trading MHi.. making money.. and bs with you guys for fun.. anyway.. i never said you were wrong about the roll.. the 'JELLY ROLL" is a famous ..duh. All I am saying is the ung can still make people money and in my opinion is safer than most stocks since it is based on a commodity.. no ceo etc.
oh landis i posted again with you in it.. hope it makes you number one all teh times i mention you.
oh landis i posted again with you in it.. hope it makes you number one all teh times i mention you.
Of course you can make money if you daytrade the ETFs, But not everybody is a Daytrader, most people just "invest" their money on this kind of tramp.
UNG (and USO) has inadvertently become a bit of a lone crusader in the mission to expose the influence of exchange traded funds on commodity markets. In the UNGâs case, however, the growth has been so large that in order to avoid a regulatory clampdown on its futures positions the fund managers have been forced into the world of over-the-counter swaps. Accordingly, the fundâs swap positions are now 2.6 times larger than its future ones.
For example, last week roll.. UNG had over 100k to roll, 27k contracts in futures and the rest between swaps and OTC. they lost over $100 millions dollars just last week just doing their roll, Lots of professional traders made some honey front running the August/September contract wich expanded from -0,12 to -0,155 the first day of UNG roll.
If the fund was to put all that money into the futures market, it would be equal to occupying 78 per cent of open interest in the July Nymex contract. Meanwhile, the holding of large swap positions goes against the fundâs mandate as outlined in its prospectus: http://www.unitedstatesnaturalgasfund.com/PDFS/UNG-Prospectus.pdf?bcsi_scan_447638299E31E942=1
So yes, It is a ponzi scheme for the average investor and it is a big oportunity for energy futures traders.
UNG (and USO) has inadvertently become a bit of a lone crusader in the mission to expose the influence of exchange traded funds on commodity markets. In the UNGâs case, however, the growth has been so large that in order to avoid a regulatory clampdown on its futures positions the fund managers have been forced into the world of over-the-counter swaps. Accordingly, the fundâs swap positions are now 2.6 times larger than its future ones.
For example, last week roll.. UNG had over 100k to roll, 27k contracts in futures and the rest between swaps and OTC. they lost over $100 millions dollars just last week just doing their roll, Lots of professional traders made some honey front running the August/September contract wich expanded from -0,12 to -0,155 the first day of UNG roll.
If the fund was to put all that money into the futures market, it would be equal to occupying 78 per cent of open interest in the July Nymex contract. Meanwhile, the holding of large swap positions goes against the fundâs mandate as outlined in its prospectus: http://www.unitedstatesnaturalgasfund.com/PDFS/UNG-Prospectus.pdf?bcsi_scan_447638299E31E942=1
So yes, It is a ponzi scheme for the average investor and it is a big oportunity for energy futures traders.
Stop.
You're making far too much sense for the lone idiot on this thread.
Everything that you have said is true, and further supports my comments about a Ponzi scheme. That having been said, our little "friend" doesn't have the brain power to comprehend what you just stated . . .
I think he was lost at "backwardation".
And your remarks about the OTC swaps in the UNG must have caused a meltdown in his brain. LOL!
Nicely done though.
Cheers!
