New ETF Plans To Make Opposite Trades Of Jim Cramer's Recommendations

[Hydrogen]

New ETF plans to provide the inverse performance of investments recommended by CNBC’s Cramer.

Tuttle Capital Management — which previously launched an exchange-traded fund betting against Cathie Wood’s stock picks — plans to debut the Inverse Cramer ETF with the ticker SJIM, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday. If approved, the fund would provide investment results that are approximately the opposite of Cramer’s investment recommendations.

The host of Mad Money on CNBC is an outspoken and polarizing figure in the finance world, known for his ardent endorsements of various stocks, with mixed results. In 2021, he praised Ark Investment Management’s Wood just before her flagship fund plummeted, and he also famously tweeted to buy AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. just prior to a 30% plunge.

“Jim’s mission has always been to encourage long-term investing and a balanced portfolio that includes index funds and individual stocks,” a CNBC spokesperson wrote in an email to Bloomberg News. “He regards Mad Money as his classroom and believes educating those who want to pick individual stocks through insight and experience is the best way to help them take control of their finances.”

The Inverse Cramer ETF would be actively managed, meaning financial professionals behind the scenes would monitor Cramer’s stock selections and overall market recommendations through Twitter or his television appearances, according to the filing. Fund managers would then sell those stocks short or use derivatives to produce a negative correlation to his recommendations.

If Cramer said he was negative on a stock or ETF, the fund managers would take a long position.

Tuttle’s anti-Wood ETF, known by the ticker SARK, is up almost 90% since its launch in November 2021 and has attracted more than $350 million in assets. Tuttle was acquired by AXS Investments earlier this year.

And for those who do have faith in Cramer, Tuttle is also planning a Long Cramer ETF, or LJIM, to bet on investments that Cramer endorses. The filings did not disclose the fees for the two funds, but SARK charges an expense ratio of 0.75%.

https://www.wealthmanagement.com/etfs/fund-helped-investors-bet-against-cathie-wood-taking-jim-cramer

....


There were past studies conducted by wallstreet investment firms which concluded stock traders would make more money doing the opposite of Jim Cramer's advice. Than they would by following it. These studies of Jim Cramer's past stock recommendations are more than a decade old.

It appears that a new ETF is revisting the old studies purely for promotional and marketing effect, I would guess?

Anyways if anyone doesn't know who Jim Cramer is, he has been portrayed in many hollywood films as the stock advisor who caps off his stock picks with him hitting a button that emits "BUY, BUY, BUY!" or "SELL, SELL, SELL!" soundbytes. Jim Cramer has been around forever. I don't think he has ever been controversial enough to draw this type of heat. But it appears that perhaps times are changing?

Given the nature of this new ETF. Is it possible for a crypto based ETF (outside the united states) to mimic the move for purely clickbait reasons? Perhaps an index of crypto fade material could be made that shorted all of the worst altcoins and tokens.

[Darker45]

This Jim Cramer thing has now escalated to a whole new different level. I'm not sure if things are still made purely out of and for fun or it has already shifted more seriously. As soon as huge money is put on the line following the opposite of Jim's recommendations, that's not anymore a joke. But the joke's probably on them. That for me is simply financial or investment irresponsibility. It's pure gambling. This is like the Buy the Schiff movement.

[jackg]

This Jim Cramer thing has now escalated to a whole new different level. I'm not sure if things are still made purely out of and for fun or it has already shifted more seriously. As soon as huge money is put on the line following the opposite of Jim's recommendations, that's not anymore a joke. But the joke's probably on them. That for me is simply financial or investment irresponsibility. It's pure gambling.

I'm thinking this too. Investment bankers taking leveraged risks on people's funds based on a TV personality does sound like something that could end badly.

I think it was suspected that he's being paid to represent some stocks too so large holders can get out or enjoy a pump before the stock falls (if they suspect it will soon) if this is the case what stops them from doing the opposite just to devalue the fund and profit further (or will there be enough checks in place to ensure this can't happen, can enough checks even be put in place)?


A fund that shorts a lot of shitcoins will bring no value to the operator imo (or they'll charge really high funding fees). You've then got things to ascertain too, like are doge and xrp shitcoins, do most coins belong in that category aside from Bitcoin and some coins that either haven't been made yet or have communities so small and hidden their market caps are insignificant?

[mk4]

You know what's a hilarious outcome? If this bizarre meme-ish ETF actually gets approved but yet we still can't get a single US-based Bitcoin spot ETF to be approved by the SEC.

[Lucius]

You know what's a hilarious outcome? If this bizarre meme-ish ETF actually gets approved but yet we still can't get a single US-based Bitcoin spot ETF to be approved by the SEC.

What the SEC persistently rejects is a completely different category from everything else that has already been approved. Those who understand what it is about know that there is a big difference between futures ETFs and those that would be based on the physical holdings of Bitcoin that are traded.

On the one hand, most people see it as a very important factor in increasing the price of BTC, but we ignore the fact that large amounts of BTC could end up in the hands of very incompetent funds, which means possible hacks and much greater financial disasters than real benefits. What still needs to be taken into account is that such financial mechanisms give credibility to Bitcoin, and this is something that some people in the US are afraid of.