they wouldn't just get rid of skf without getting rid of uyg and all the others, would they? wonder if shorting these etfs would be the way to go then, that way if they are banned, you would get to cover them at zero?
Their arguement won't hold up, it's full of holes. These ETFs track the intraday return, not long-term. I can't even watch the whole video. I can't believe he can lie with a straight face and spew this bs to his viewers...sad.
A better step would be for the CME to actually promote its own products, in this case the S&P Financial SPCTR futures. If that contract were actually promoted and liquid, I think a lot of traders in SKF/UYG/FAS/FAZ would switch over - better leverage, better taxes, 24h trading. But instead, the CME releases new products with little to no promotion, watches them wither and die an illiquid death, while the exchange continues to lose volume in their other markets.
ETF's also serve a different purpose - they are FUNDS. As a registered fund certain investors can use them where they can't use futures. Specificlly, many financial advisors are only allowed to purchase mutual funds (40 Act) ETFs and stock - but no options, futures, etc. Also, IMO the only difference between a 40 Act Fund and an ETF is the ET part - these things are simply mutual funds with intra-day liquidity. There is nothing bad about them, only people who don't know how to use them, dont' know what the investment objective of the ETF is and people who are in over their head trading leveraged products.
I don't think a ban is called for, but there's lots of ETF's that track very well over the long term. Even leveraged ones. I don't understand why some people try to make excuses for the ones that don't by saying "they're intended only for intraday trades". It's fine if that's what they're intended for, but clearly the intraday tracking would be better if the long term tracking was better.