Game Over for U.S. Oil, Natural Gas ETFs? 41 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Commodity ETFs have been criticized from all corners. Investors have pilloried their inability to accurately track the price of their underlying asset. Industry watchdogs have assailed their inadequate disclosure of risks. And regulators have fretted over their ability to unduly manipulate futures markets.
Yet ETFs like the United States Natural Gas Fund (UNG) and the United States Oil Fund (USO) seem to have thus far gotten away with high fees, poor disclosure, and disappointing returns, as investors are still buying them in droves. But regulators are less happy, and commodities-futures ETFs may not survive the coming regulatory onslaught.
Bloomberg reported yesterday that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) will open hearings into expanding regulation of speculative trading in commodities. Although the hearings concern all speculators, the regulators are primarly concerned with USO and UNG's ability to move the oil and natural gas markets higher, adding a speculative premium to energy prices. Trading in the UNG was briefly halted as the SEC denied its routine request to issue more shares.
Ironically, with the USO and UNG, investors get the worst of both worlds. The funds themselves don't track the price of the commodity very well due to rollover, so investors don't reap the rewards of higher prices. But many believe their trading nonetheless increases demand for the contracts, driving spot prices prices higher. Not only do the UNG and USO screw you out of your returns, they make filling up and heating your home more costly. The only people who benefit from this scheme are the ETF issuers who collect the fees, and the speculators who actually play the futures markets properly.
The CFTC is considering putting limits on holding futures contracts, which could take a variety of forms including limiting the number of trades or contracts any one market participant can hold. Such a move would directly threaten commodity futures funds, and could force many of the largest ones to close up shop.
It would be difficult to keep the size of any ETF down to a particular number of trades or contracts because ETFs are supposed to be open-ended, issuing new shares and acquiring new assets to match as investors put money in. Keeping a commodity ETF within regulatory limits, therefore, will essentially force it to become a closed-end fund that trades at a discount or premium to its net-asset value
Such funds already exist, but are nowhere near as popular as their exchange traded peers precisely because their values fluctuate in such a seemingly random fashion. And the CEFs don't solve the rollover problem found on ETFs, as they don't have fixed end dates to match those of their underlying contracts.
In fact the UNG today entered such a closed-end situation as the CFTC failed to approve its request to issue additional shares pending the outcome of its hearings, meaning the fund that was already a messy way to play natural gas has become a downright terrible one.
Although Exchange Traded Funds are wonderful creations, they simply cannot invest in futures markets. There is an inherent and irreconcilable clash between an ETF's open-ended structure and the closed-end and fixed-date nature of futures contracts. An Exchange Traded Fund will never be able to accurately track the price of a commodity by investing in futures. Only those that invest in the physical asset - like the GLD, SLV, and several commodity ETFs traded in London are able to do that at the moment.
Yet funds like the USO and the UNG would have you believe otherwise. They attract assets with misleading marketing and fail to provide investors the product they expect. It's a hugely profitable business, but collecting fees on a mislabeled product is ethically dubious and investing in such funds can be investing suicide if you don't know the risk. Greater regulation is needed and coming, the only question now is whether it leaves these ETFs simply out of luck or out of business.
If anyone can figure out an exchange traded investment product that can actually track commodity prices through futures, it'd be a wonderful tool to play the whole asset class. But the current class of commodity futures ETFs can be terrible instruments which generate fees and little else. The investment industry as a whole needs to be more honest about these funds, but unfortunately most investment advisers seem clueless about the USO and UNG.
On the day before the CFTC announced it was investigating these dubious funds and trading in the UNG was halted, ETF "gurus" were on national television praising their virtues; which is kinda like recommending Fairfield Greenwich on December 9, 2008.
It's time for some honesty and integrity in the ETF marketplace. I'd rather have self-regulation, and if the government has to force disclosures and limits on these funds then so be it.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 41 comments:
These vehicles are a joke, and are duping investors.
We need to rein in a lot of the racketeering on WS, and this is a good place to begin.
the analog is : can computer virus killers keep up with the virus/worm inventors.
> jack
I'm extremely happy with both DXO and DTO. Was in the first for a 100%+ ride and now in the second with current a position at 30%+.
Sure don't hope these opportunities don't go away.
RE:
"The only people who benefit from this scheme are the ETF issuers who collect the fees, and the speculators who actually play the futures markets properly."
Sure HOPE these opportunities don't go away.
"Trading in the UNG was breifly halted as the SEC denied its routine request to issue more shares."
In the article, "no comment" can not be reasonably interpreted as "denied", although some insider may know that's what is meant or implied.
All that has happened so far is the normal SEC snails-pace processing. Of more import, in my opinion, is the CFTC discussions that will occur over the summer.
The last action Edgar shows is this initial filing (that I can find)
www.sec.gov/Archives/e...
Let's keep it accurate folks. No additional unwarranted consternation needed in this market.
HardToLove
And I guess technically you're right. The application wasn't denied. the agency simply "declined to accept" it.
Basically, the UNG wasn't allowed to issue new shares due to the regulators actions - whatever you call it.
On Jul 08 09:00 AM H. T. Love wrote:
> Regardless of the intrinsic value of UNG et al, this statement is
> misleading.
>
> "Trading in the UNG was breifly halted as the SEC denied its routine
> request to issue more shares."
>
> In the article, "no comment" can not be reasonably interpreted as
> "denied", although some insider may know that's what is meant or
> implied.
>
> All that has happened so far is the normal SEC snails-pace processing.
> Of more import, in my opinion, is the CFTC discussions that will
> occur over the summer.
>
> The last action Edgar shows is this initial filing (that I can find)
>
> www.sec.gov/Archives/e...
>
>
> Let's keep it accurate folks. No additional unwarranted consternation
> needed in this market.
>
> HardToLove
The proper link is www.sec.gov/Archives/e...
And you can see all activity at www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/br...
Again, apologies.
HardToLove
On Jul 08 09:00 AM H. T. Love wrote:
> Regardless of the intrinsic value of UNG et al, this statement is
> misleading.
>
> "Trading in the UNG was breifly halted as the SEC denied its routine
> request to issue more shares."
>
> In the article, "no comment" can not be reasonably interpreted as
> "denied", although some insider may know that's what is meant or
> implied.
>
> All that has happened so far is the normal SEC snails-pace processing.
> Of more import, in my opinion, is the CFTC discussions that will
> occur over the summer.
>
> The last action Edgar shows is this initial filing (that I can find)
>
> www.sec.gov/Archives/e...
>
>
> Let's keep it accurate folks. No additional unwarranted consternation
> needed in this market.
>
> HardToLove
"My broka said jus' buy dem ETF's, and don't be bettin' on some mutual fund managa dude that just lost ten yeahs o'my savins..."
Is this what they *should do?* Probably not.
Is this what they're *going to do?* Safe forecast. Play accordingly.
--rq
1)world wide demand- Europe, Japan and the US represent 70% of demand. In order for the other 30% to move the needle would take serious escalations in demand all predicated on infrastructure improvements, economic stability and major economic growth. This would take generations to happen.
2)Chaos theory- Something someday will happen. Be it a hurricane, a war, some puny dictator saber rattling, a refinery fire or cold weather in Antarctica. Some basis for investing.
3)Driving "seasons"- there is a summer driving season, a winter holiday driving season, a labor day, memorial day, a thanksgiving driving season. sounds like it's pretty much all the time. Also, doesn't this "theory" fly in the face of the "global demand" story. If indeed it's global demand then what will a few extra miles in an ordinary weekend matter.
The best article I ever saw was written by two guys from Stanford who did an analysis that World Wide oil could be controlled with just $11Bln. Hum, so a market that has the power to destroy our GDP and economy can be controlled with just $11BLn. Now, I know we are all altruistic investors but what if some people got together and decided that they would sell the dollar short bid oil up and short the dow on the basis of the negative feedback loop would raise input costs to producers creating a margin squeeze then they would have to raise prices to consumers- thus killing the consumer. Now, how much money could be made off such a trade? Maybe we should ask Soros.
DUMB MONEY- we are it.
While it seems to be a given that in the future commodities will become more expensive due to supply/demand. However, the belief in rising future commodity prices could become self fulfilling. Traders are buying ETF's, creating an artificially high price due to forced futures buying. They are essentially creating a high price from speculative buying, not due to the fundamentals of short supply/high demand.
UNG has had a major influence in keeping up the price of NG. If it were not for UNG NG would be trading much lower NOW due to market fundamentals. There is currently an excess of NG with low market demand. If the 12 month NG ETF comes to fruition the effect of ETF speculation may be even greater on further month NG contracts. It will roll into contracts 12 months out (talk about contango). They are rather thinly traded at this point but the ETF trading should increase the volume, possibly significantly. Futures traders will exploit this issue by trading the contract before the roll creating another example of the USO effect.
Relatively speaking, though, hedge funds and major institutions still have a much greater effect on the prices than ETF's do.
Secondly, if you pull up a weekly chart of NG spot prices going back to 2008 and overlay it with a weekly chart of UNG over the same time period, the price movements track almost exactly, further negating the assertion that there is any "sub par" returns.
Next, the assertion that all the purchasing of shares of UNG has led to distortions in spot prices is not borne out by reality. Buying in UNG has increased 8 fold over the last few months, while during the same time period NG prices have DECLINED!
Then there's the assertion that if funds such as UNG or USO are forced to become CEF's that they will always be trading at a discount or premium to their NAV, and that it is necessarily a bad thing, both of which are false. Most CEF's usually only trade at a discount or premium during extremely volatile periods, and always return eventually to their NAV. For the smart investor, this simply creates additional opportunities, either to sell the fund when it's trading at a premium, or to buy more of it when it trades at a discount.
I'm not a habitual critic and really do try to be accurate.
Thanks in advance,
HardToLove
On Jul 08 10:18 AM ETF Grind wrote:
> Well they had no comment on why they denied the request.
>
> And I guess technically you're right. The application wasn't denied.
> the agency simply "declined to accept" it.
>
> Basically, the UNG wasn't allowed to issue new shares due to the
> regulators actions - whatever you call it.
Now, some that came in are certainly long-term investors. But with that volume in *this* environment one could safely presume there is some speculation.
This could be supported by the following information.
If you read the SEC filings, you'll find that authorized distributors buy and redeem "baskets" ("creation" or "redemption) of 100,000 units (if I recall correctly - well, that's in the new 12 month filing and should be similar in the current 1 month version) and resell to retail folks like us. They also can buy back and then "redeem" their "basket" and maybe make some money.
So, we have a "middle man" that has no interest in NG who plunks down 100K*price and sells to us and buys back, if they want to, and sells the "basket" back to the issuer.
That *sounds* like speculation to me.
Regardless, I don't really care as long as it gives us poor snooks an entry into the market. It is up to us to do our due diligence and make a profit - as a speculator or investor - and so I have no criticism of the fund, per se.
www.sec.gov/Archives/e... has the 7/7/2009 form 8-K and www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/br... lets you see all you ever wanted and more, I guess.
HardToLove
On Jul 08 12:05 PM dilton wrote:
> UNG appears to be at a low. Natural gas is too. Where's the speculation
> push?
Yes, they may approve it later. But the fund needs the new shares now. There was a deadline, and it passed without a decision. To me that's a decline.
On Jul 08 04:17 PM H. T. Love wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I find only "The SEC has not yet approved the request
> and a spokesman for the agency said the SEC has no comment." as the
> closet thing to "declined to accept" in the article that was linked
> in. Is there another source that I should have reviewed?
>
> I'm not a habitual critic and really do try to be accurate.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> HardToLove
Exchange Traded Notes? They have 0 tracking error, by definition.
There are a ton of articles on seekingalpha about them. The major risk involved is credit risk. Would it be possible (at least in theory) to hedge this with CDS? Probably not for the individual investor...
Individuals trading futures are not required to roll over their contracts every month. They can take delivery or sell the contracts and not buy new ones.
The UNG doesn't have those options Hence this rollover problem is unique to ETFs like the UNG and the USO.
As far as returns go, the critique was more for the USO than the UNG. Take a look at USO versus crude and you'll see what I mean. Its a terrible under performance ytd.
The UNG has also underperformed, but not as badly. But it point is more that is has the potential to perform much worse than spot prices, if market conditions are right. That's a hidden risk of these funds.
As for CEFs, if they are so wonderful, why are ETFs booming as a vehicle?
Cheers.
On Jul 08 04:06 PM zboy2854 wrote:
> This article is full of misinformation, and should only be used as
> a contrarian indicator. Firstly, the assertion that a fund such
> as UNG "underperforms" due to rollover costs makes no sense, since
> there are rollover costs if you play the actual futures themselves!
> So why would one think it could be avoided in ETF form if you can't
> avoid it in the futures market?
>
> Secondly, if you pull up a weekly chart of NG spot prices going back
> to 2008 and overlay it with a weekly chart of UNG over the same time
> period, the price movements track almost exactly, further negating
> the assertion that there is any "sub par" returns.
>
> Next, the assertion that all the purchasing of shares of UNG has
> led to distortions in spot prices is not borne out by reality. Buying
> in UNG has increased 8 fold over the last few months, while during
> the same time period NG prices have DECLINED!
>
> Then there's the assertion that if funds such as UNG or USO are forced
> to become CEF's that they will always be trading at a discount or
> premium to their NAV, and that it is necessarily a bad thing, both
> of which are false. Most CEF's usually only trade at a discount
> or premium during extremely volatile periods, and always return eventually
> to their NAV. For the smart investor, this simply creates additional
> opportunities, either to sell the fund when it's trading at a premium,
> or to buy more of it when it trades at a discount.
On Jul 08 04:49 PM varun saluja wrote:
> "If anyone can figure out an exchange traded investment product that
> can actually track commodity prices through futures, it'd be a wonderful
> tool to play the whole asset class."
>
> Exchange Traded Notes? They have 0 tracking error, by definition.
>
>
> There are a ton of articles on seekingalpha about them. The major
> risk involved is credit risk. Would it be possible (at least in
> theory) to hedge this with CDS? Probably not for the individual
> investor...
And moreover, if you check the charts I suggested, you would see that in fact UNG has tracked almost perfectly with NG prices. So this renders your entire argument regarding rollover moot, and your assertion that UNG has "underperformed" actual NG prices is simply flat out wrong.
And what exactly are these "market conditions" under which you contend UNG would underperform NG prices? We've already seen a precipitous rise and a precipitous fall in NG prices over the past 2 years, and UNG was right there tracking with it on both the upside and downside. So what other market conditions are you speaking of?
As to CEF's, they can in fact be quite wonderful in many cases, particularly when purchasing shares that are trading at a discount to NAV when bullish and selling or shorting shares that trade at a premium when bearish. Ultimately, there is nothing to be scared of UNG, nor of CEF's.
On Jul 08 04:49 PM ETF Grind wrote:
> Well, I don't know how to respond to this puzzling critique.
>
> Individuals trading futures are not required to roll over their contracts
> every month. They can take delivery or sell the contracts and not
> buy new ones.
>
> The UNG doesn't have those options Hence this rollover problem is
> unique to ETFs like the UNG and the USO.
>
> As far as returns go, the critique was more for the USO than the
> UNG. Take a look at USO versus crude and you'll see what I mean.
> Its a terrible under performance ytd.
>
> The UNG has also underperformed, but not as badly. But it point is
> more that is has the potential to perform much worse than spot prices,
> if market conditions are right. That's a hidden risk of these funds.
>
>
> As for CEFs, if they are so wonderful, why are ETFs booming as a
> vehicle?
>
> Cheers.
>
> On Jul 08 04:06 PM zboy2854 wrote:
Yes, people can sell the UNG every month, but they would have to buy it back it again if they wanted back into the market - thus rollover.
And individual futures traders can buy contracts of different maturities! How can you not know that? They don't have to roll over six one-month contracts like the UNG, they can buy a six-month contract instead!
The market conditions I described are known as "contango". Google it.
And I find it convenient you didn't address my point about the USO's under performance and the possibility that the UNG could miss the mark by that much as well.
Cheers. Me and my mates drink one to your education tonight at the pub.
And on that subject, yes of course people can buy contracts with further maturities, that is, if they want to pay unnecessarily higher premiums with contango factored in. How can you not know that? The fact of the matter is that whether talking about rolling futures contracts, or rolling issues with respect to energy ETF's, you cannot escape the issue, so for you to even bring it up in the context of ETF's while ignoring the issue that also exists when trading futures is patently absurd.
And to add to the absurdity is the fact that you have failed to account for the fact that contrary to your assertions, UNG has tracked right on with NG prices. Yes, USO has not performed as well vis a vis oil prices, but your article attempted to lump both USO and UNG into the same boat, when their respective performances are entirely different. Very shoddy research on your part, and misleading to say the very least.
As to "education", may I suggest you educate yourself on the issues you are attempting to speak so authoritatively about before questioning my knowledge base. There's that old saying about people in glass houses and all that..
But I would like to thank you for your article. It is yet another confirming contrarian indicator that aggressively purchasing UNG at these levels is absolutely the correct course of action.
On Jul 08 07:12 PM ETF Grind wrote:
> Well, USCF employees aside most people do have a problem with these
> funds.
>
> Yes, people can sell the UNG every month, but they would have to
> buy it back it again if they wanted back into the market - thus rollover.
>
>
> And individual futures traders can buy contracts of different maturities!
> How can you not know that? They don't have to roll over six one-month
> contracts like the UNG, they can buy a six-month contract instead!
>
>
> The market conditions I described are known as "contango". Google
> it.
>
> And I find it convenient you didn't address my point about the USO's
> under performance and the possibility that the UNG could miss the
> mark by that much as well.
>
> Cheers. Me and my mates drink one to your education tonight at the
> pub.
A surface read says "get out of ETFs and UNG/USO"
Really, are the operators making all this money going to simply close shop? SEC regulate?
Ha!
To me, it sounds more like "shaking out" the public at low prices before the next big rally.
I can think of a lot of "poorly constructed" investment vehicles.
I notice someone commented above that buying futures was hard and buying ETF"s was easy.
That is the point, making money is hard and losing money is easy.
On Jul 08 07:12 PM ETF Grind wrote:
> Well, USCF employees aside most people do have a problem with these
> funds.
>
> Yes, people can sell the UNG every month, but they would have to
> buy it back it again if they wanted back into the market - thus rollover.
>
>
> And individual futures traders can buy contracts of different maturities!
> How can you not know that? They don't have to roll over six one-month
> contracts like the UNG, they can buy a six-month contract instead!
>
>
> The market conditions I described are known as "contango". Google
> it.
>
> And I find it convenient you didn't address my point about the USO's
> under performance and the possibility that the UNG could miss the
> mark by that much as well.
>
> Cheers. Me and my mates drink one to your education tonight at the
> pub.
I think ETFs are GREAT! I've made some good profits on them this year. You just have to know what you're doing. They are NOT for buying and going long - that's a ridiculous idea. They are NOT for investors. Traders only! Big difference between a trader and an investor. I like to trade the options for them. If you time things right, you can make incredible returns.
Personally, I just know better. If oil is going up, and I see a spike at the gas pump, I invest in the oil companies to make up for that little bit lost at the pump. Almost everyone has that opportunity, or could work to find it. They could learn how to invest or trade, and save up for however long it takes to get started - do some paper trading in the mean time.
I almost think the real problem is jealousy. People complain because some group has something they don't. They want the government to fix it. Why don't they just get off their couch, get an education, and do something for themselves.
On Jul 08 12:05 PM dilton wrote:
> UNG appears to be at a low. Natural gas is too. Where's the speculation
> push?
Based on that example, I hereafter will presume that I don't know what you mean in any statement you make, since your words have meaning unique to you.
As to "deadline", that's another ballgame. If I recall correctly, last time this happened to UNG, 3 days after the "deadline", the new issuance was approved.
I won't start another discussion of "deadline" meanings and implications, but that past action does appear to completely obviate your use of "declined".
HardToLove
On Jul 08 04:42 PM ETF Grind wrote:
> To me "has not yet approved the request" means they declined the
> request.
>
> Yes, they may approve it later. But the fund needs the new shares
> now. There was a deadline, and it passed without a decision. To me
> that's a decline.
If you think the investigation and the fact that the request hasn't been approved yet are unrelated, then you're right.
If you think they are related, then I'm right.
We don't know, but I was willing to bet that the CFTC opening an investigation into the fund had something to do with it halting trading, and so were every journalist who covered the story from Bloomberg to Reuters.
Cheers.
On Jul 09 05:50 AM H. T. Love wrote:
> Ok. So when you communicate to others, I guess we just need to know
> that when you say declined, you *may* mean "not yet approved", which
> leaves open a future action.
>
> Based on that example, I hereafter will presume that I don't know
> what you mean in any statement you make, since your words have meaning
> unique to you.
>
> As to "deadline", that's another ballgame. If I recall correctly,
> last time this happened to UNG, 3 days after the "deadline", the
> new issuance was approved.
>
> I won't start another discussion of "deadline" meanings and implications,
> but that past action does appear to completely obviate your use of
> "declined".
>
> HardToLove
>
> On Jul 08 04:42 PM ETF Grind wrote:
Want to speculate in the commodity futures game? Fine. Be a real player...put your money directly in, and be prepared to accept the product...This what the market was built to do to help even out the roils of seasonal factors of real supply and demand, by producers adn end users...you buy, you play, you win or lose or take the goods...Yo don't just 'roll the trade over' with a CDS swap from Gov Sachs, who can make money with ultra-savvy play. and, you shouldn't be alow to take on-going, forever long positions in CIFs, (highly contrived. manipulated devices, and these other funds...).
Fast buck artists are - "Not only do the UNG and USO screw you out of your returns, they make filling up and heating your home more costly." as per the author...Time to stop the insanity!
Zboy, dont know about you...you sound like one the ones we warn of here.. Buckeast - "Well Said!"
Anyone want to be long these guys when Uncle Sam cracks down? I don' think so. You want to have a safer play on the commodities, look at ETF's that are made up of the legitimate companies, i.e. FCG for nat gas, OIH for U.S. oil. I'm not recommending either of them, i'm just pointing out there are safer ways to still get exposure to oil and nat gas. Sure there is a different inherent risk in owning companies vs the direct commodity, but at least you're owning companies that have the capability to generate cash vs an ETF that actually manipulates the market when they make trades.
The more bloated UNG and USO become, the larger the tracking error gets, and once the gov't steps in, if I was long I'd be running for the hills.
Full disclosure just shorted both of them.
Take a peek at this SA article if you haven't read it already seekingalpha.com/artic....
On Jul 08 04:39 PM H. T. Love wrote:
> There's been a lot of SA articles about this, and normal press reports
> in the financial news and blogs. If I recall (don't hold me to the
> actual numbers), UNG started the year with about $687M in the fund
> and has grown to a couple billion since then. This happenwd even
> as NG prices continued inexorably down, there were lots of posts
> and articles about the supply being so much greater than demand and
> still growing even as demand continued to shrink.
>
> Now, some that came in are certainly long-term investors. But with
> that volume in *this* environment one could safely presume there
> is some speculation.
>
> This could be supported by the following information.
>
> If you read the SEC filings, you'll find that authorized distributors
> buy and redeem "baskets" ("creation" or "redemption) of 100,000 units
> (if I recall correctly - well, that's in the new 12 month filing
> and should be similar in the current 1 month version) and resell
> to retail folks like us. They also can buy back and then "redeem"
> their "basket" and maybe make some money.
>
> So, we have a "middle man" that has no interest in NG who plunks
> down 100K*price and sells to us and buys back, if they want to, and
> sells the "basket" back to the issuer.
>
> That *sounds* like speculation to me.
>
> Regardless, I don't really care as long as it gives us poor snooks
> an entry into the market. It is up to us to do our due diligence
> and make a profit - as a speculator or investor - and so I have no
> criticism of the fund, per se.
>
> www.sec.gov/Archives/e...
> has the 7/7/2009 form 8-K and www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/br...;CIK=0001376227&am...
> lets you see all you ever wanted and more, I guess.
>
> HardToLove
>
> On Jul 08 12:05 PM dilton wrote:
On Jul 08 04:42 PM ETF Grind wrote:
> To me "has not yet approved the request" means they declined the
> request.
>
> Yes, they may approve it later. But the fund needs the new shares
> now. There was a deadline, and it passed without a decision. To me
> that's a decline.
Can we now agree that "declined", "denied", etc. were inappropriate?
HardToLove
On Jul 09 02:08 PM ETF Grind wrote:
> I don't think parsing words is the best way to determine the meaning
> of anything.
>
> If you think the investigation and the fact that the request hasn't
> been approved yet are unrelated, then you're right.
>
> If you think they are related, then I'm right.
>
> We don't know, but I was willing to bet that the CFTC opening an
> investigation into the fund had something to do with it halting trading,
> and so were every journalist who covered the story from Bloomberg
> to Reuters.
>
> Cheers.
> Today, 8/12 UNG received UNG approval for 1B new units. <sniip>
S/b "SEC approval".
HardToLove