Jump to content



Photo

SDS Vs. SSO Liquidity


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 ChickenLittle

ChickenLittle

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 137 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 03:39 PM

Why is the liquidity so much better in SDS than SSO????
History always repeats . . . only the details change.

#2 Darris

Darris

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,667 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 07:35 PM

LMAO, folks love shortin a Bull market, LOL. Same with QID. Sorry. :redbull: :redbull: :redbull:

Edited by Darris, 16 July 2007 - 07:39 PM.


#3 ChickenLittle

ChickenLittle

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 137 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 08:52 PM

Take today for an example, the volume in QID was about 15 times greater than QLD. That's a BIG difference. Since one can go long or short in either of these stocks and achieve the same approximate result (but not exact), there must be a reason for the volume difference. I'm thinking the volume is higher in the ultra shorts because of options and/or futures (???) but I don't understand the exact why. Maybe someone could 'splain it to me. The percentage return is not greater in the cheaper QID than the QLD. For instance, the time period of June 26 to the present (no dividends during that period) found that the gain in QLD was about 1% higher than the short of QID. If I screwed up the calc please advise and if anyone has a better insight into this please elaborate. :blink:
History always repeats . . . only the details change.

#4 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,874 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 10:42 PM

My guess is that people are long individual stocks and use the short sds and qid to hedge.

#5 ChickenLittle

ChickenLittle

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 137 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 10:50 PM

My guess is that people are long individual stocks and use the short sds and qid to hedge.


And that's why the huge volume diff. Makes sense

Thanks RD
History always repeats . . . only the details change.

#6 Drano

Drano

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 481 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 10:52 PM

Take today for an example, the volume in QID was about 15 times greater than QLD. That's a BIG difference. Since one can go long or short in either of these stocks and achieve the same approximate result (but not exact), there must be a reason for the volume difference. I'm thinking the volume is higher in the ultra shorts because of options and/or futures (???) but I don't understand the exact why. Maybe someone could 'splain it to me.

The percentage return is not greater in the cheaper QID than the QLD. For instance, the time period of June 26 to the present (no dividends during that period) found that the gain in QLD was about 1% higher than the short of QID.

If I screwed up the calc please advise and if anyone has a better insight into this please elaborate. :blink:

QLD 103.85
QQQQ 49.85

Why mess with the 2x fund when it costs twice as much as the real thing, so you can just buy twice as many Q shares -- especially since there is so much liquidity with the Q's that you can get in and out instantly. Also, if people want to short in retirement accounts and are not allowed to do so (or to buy options), they have no choice but to use the inverse ETFs.

#7 vitaminm

vitaminm

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 6,701 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 11:02 PM

http://etf.seekingal...m/article/22594


http://www.elitetrad...?threadid=89133
vitaminm

#8 ChickenLittle

ChickenLittle

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 137 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 11:25 PM

http://etf.seekingal...m/article/22594


http://www.elitetrad...?threadid=89133



Thanks for the great info.
History always repeats . . . only the details change.

#9 vitaminm

vitaminm

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 6,701 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 11:28 PM

Take today for an example, the volume in QID was about 15 times greater than QLD. That's a BIG difference. Since one can go long or short in either of these stocks and achieve the same approximate result (but not exact), there must be a reason for the volume difference. I'm thinking the volume is higher in the ultra shorts because of options and/or futures (???) but I don't understand the exact why. Maybe someone could 'splain it to me.

The percentage return is not greater in the cheaper QID than the QLD. For instance, the time period of June 26 to the present (no dividends during that period) found that the gain in QLD was about 1% higher than the short of QID.

If I screwed up the calc please advise and if anyone has a better insight into this please elaborate. :blink:

QLD 103.85
QQQQ 49.85

Why mess with the 2x fund when it costs twice as much as the real thing, so you can just buy twice as many Q shares -- especially since there is so much liquidity with the Q's that you can get in and out instantly. Also, if people want to short in retirement accounts and are not allowed to do so (or to buy options), they have no choice but to use the inverse ETFs.






look at % CHANGE

Columnar
Symbol Time Trade Change % Chg Volume Intraday Related Info
QQQQ Jul 16 49.85 0.05 0.10% 77,799,493 Chart, Messages, , More
QLD Jul 16 103.85 0.11 0.11% 905,000 Chart, , More
QID Jul 16 41.75 0.05 0.12% 13,686,492 Chart, , More
vitaminm

#10 SilentOne

SilentOne

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 3,452 posts

Posted 17 July 2007 - 05:32 AM

My guess is that people are long individual stocks and use the short sds and qid to hedge.


This is something I like to do if I am holding a porfolio of stocks in a buy & hold mode. Buying SDS when things look toppy (like yesterday) helps me to keep my positions.

cheers,

john

Edited by SilentOne, 17 July 2007 - 05:32 AM.

"By the Law of Periodical Repetition, everything which has happened once must happen again and again and again-and not capriciously, but at regular periods, and each thing in its own period, not another's, and each obeying its own law ..." - Mark Twain