I have been informed by tdameritrade that there were 21000 clients impacted by UWT alone. There has already been lawsuits and previous failed ETNs from Velocity Shares, others have attempted to legally address why products have not performed as intended or described. I believe when there is two products like this that are suppose to be correlated and that track the same index but are designed for typically long only clients to hedge their risk being the inverse of the other ETN (UWT and DWT) that they must to be considered legitimate products, minimally perform as described in that capacity and as others have outlined here the products have not. Neither performed as expected, with the expectation being to track the index mentioned in the prospectus and ultimately the underlying crude contracts that are supposedly held. I purchased the majority of my shares in UWT in early march 2020 and I purchased DWT in a smaller increment as a hedge against further decreasing prices. Neither tracked fluctuations in the index accordingly. When a day occured that would have resulted in a trigger event as described in the Bloomberg article here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-09/crude-collapse-puts-exchange-traded-note-s-future-in-jeopardy which did in fact occur in after hours trading, no such acceleration occurred which was suppose to happen and there was no communication from the issuer regarding this even despite my communications to the issuer. Not only did UWT not track the rise in crude during this time but DWT did not respond accordingly either. Bloomberg also reported record inflows into the fund meaning there were new net inflows (short covering or newly initiated long (buy) positions which should have resulted in a price increase in UWT shares but this was not observable. Then, for apparently no new reason or not an articulable reason unless it was related to the former trigger event which should have been automatic according to the prospectus but apparently was not, Citigroup Velocityshares issued a news release stating that they would be "accelerating" or calling in the note but gave no specific calculations or valuations or reasoning other than a date it would occur. The shares in UWT were kept at the lowest prices they had ever traded (being issued to the market at a principal value per share of $25 while ending at 16 cents (.16) per share, near zero, essentially a total loss. While the last trading date and subsequent days saw the largest daily return in over 20 years of the front month crude contract (and other periods during the final month of trading should have showed positive returns but did not), UWT shareholders did not experience the benefit of this although presumably the firm which was holding the underlying contracts (if that is the expectation) or tracking the index did experience this yet it was not paid to shareholders. Even another ETN which tracked the same index as velocity shares showed their shareholders (of whom I was included) a return on their shares. Understand this....a separate fund, designed to track the exact same instrument and index but run by a different group showed a markly different (and more favorable) return during the exact same trading dates (the few days leading up to the close of UWT). This I believe clearly points to problems with the design and implementation (execution) and a willful and negligent misrepresentation of critical information and timely, relevant criteria that, even by their own protective language in their own prospectus, does not hold. Individual retail and even institutional customers simply look for something that in the description of the ticker indicates what it the designed to do (track crude or its inverse) and hold the security based one those presumptions. There is no debt instrument, which indicates in the prospectus a return of principal that should be issued with a principal amount of $25 and be called back in from the issue with essentially $0 returned (a full loss) ......the instrument should continue to trade until expiration or provide shareholders a return of principal. No one can rationalize allowing a debt instrument backed by a commodity to have 0 value. The commodity always has some value and can be stored. No, this fraud was artfully designed to herd investors into a safe haven instrument (oil in the last financial crisis as an example) and force a liquidation where one could not otherwise exist. Information was withheld and from the design (the nature of the security to lose value with rolls...it should not if designed and implemented correctly)...such that many causes of action arise from this. Clearly legal discovery is in order and shareholders have multiple causes of actions and legitimate complaints. Again there is a history of lawsuits being brought against Velocity Shares and this is the most overwhelming example yet of the need for litigation or simply restitution.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
