Hacker News Reader

Comment by bick_nyers | Hacker News Reader

I've seen the joke on r/WallStreetBets to just inverse all of Jim Cramer's picks, turns out there is an actual honest to god ETF for it:

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/sjim

View on HN

Probably worth adding: there's also one that tracks Cramer's bets, and as of today, its performance since inception (both March this year) is (minimally) better than the inverse one:

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/ljim

However, the long fund is going to be closed, because "Mr. Cramer and CNBC have [...] chosen to ignore the funds, therefore there is no reason to keep the long side going" : https://assets.website-files.com/637240a49ba56f7bfbe82c84/64...

edit: not affiliated in any way with either project, btw

It's not doing as well as I'd hoped, but not nearly as bad as I expected.

Not surprising considering a monkey throwing darts at the S&P 500 will outperform the best analysts in the world.

> Not surprising considering a monkey throwing darts at the S&P 500 will outperform the best analysts in the world.

The best analysts/managers in the world are pulling consistent 30-50% returns over the past 20-30 years. See Citadel hedge fund for example (and not the HFT Citadel Securities).

The problem is, these “profits” are taken by the analysts and managers by way of incentive and performance fees, thus leaving the passive investor/LP with barely break-even risk adjusted returns.

It’s possibly similar to the “tout” phenomenon in sports betting. Guys that can actually beat the books at a good clip aren’t usually selling that info, they’re using it to enrich themselves.

Citadel is generally a bad example to use, as it’s exceptionally likely their performance is at least partially due to tax shuffling shenanigans and other regulatory violations. One can infer this because it’s exceptionally unlikely for them to have that performance even as an outlier using legitimate means

Do you not understand the concept of high frequency trading? Citadel is a market maker, there is nothing sinister or shady about how they make money. It’s all done in accordance with the law and reported quarterly.

Do you have any proof of this outside of anonymous WSB posts?

It’s based on the fact that their reported returns are so absurdly far on the long-tail of being an outlier as to suggest there is more to it than “they’re just good.” I don’t know for sure—but it’s close enough that I’d bet a lot of my own 7-figure net worth on it.

Also, I only know of WSB from articles I’ve read: your implication is rude and uncharitable at best.

So, no proof then?

Also, your implication that a company is performing illegal activity just because they're successful is rude and uncharitable at best.

Then it’s not based on any fact..

I would have thought the joke would be to bet against everything that makes it to the front page of WSB

There's MEME if you wanted to bet for instead. For betting against I don't know if there is an ETF yet but you can short MEME manually.

This would have either ruined, or enriched you during the Gamestop/AMC fiasco.

Sounds like we need a (inverse) finfluencer index to prevent overexposure to Cramer.

Don't forget the inverse Michael Burry fund to give you black swan protection!

There is a conspiracy theory that Jim Cramer trades against his own advice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com