December 3rd, 2014

The StockTrak Journey

Online Stocker
Professor George Klar
FINE 3200 Investments

Group Members:
Avneet Multani
Somanshu Prasad
Tanveer Brar
Zara Satti

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 2
INVESTMENT STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................... 3
LEARNING OUTCOMES ................................................................................................................ 5
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ..................................................................................................... 8
TEAM DYNAMICS ......................................................................................................................... 9
KEY TAKEAWAYS ......................................................................................................................... 10
APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX B.......................................................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX C.......................................................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................................... 13
APPENDIX E .......................................................................................................................... 14
APPENDIX F .......................................................................................................................... 15
APPENDIX G ......................................................................................................................... 15
APPENDIX H ......................................................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX I ........................................................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX J .......................................................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX K ......................................................................................................................... 17
APPENDIX L .......................................................................................................................... 18
APPENDIX M ........................................................................................................................ 19
APPENDIX N ......................................................................................................................... 20
APPENDIX O ......................................................................................................................... 20

Online Stocker | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Throughout the ten-week period in the StockTrak Investment Challenge, our team, Online
Stocker, adopted and experimented with a variety of active portfolio management strategies. We have
had an incredible journey through this competition, with various upsides, as well as rough downsides,
however eventually ended on a positive note. We initially began with an event based strategy, having
limited knowledge of course concepts. However, we quickly developed strategies which included
seasonality, sector rotation, value investing, and risky commodity quick-mover strategies. Despite many
of the strategies having mixed results, we gained significant knowledge about the nature of the stock
market and effective methods to combat team dynamics issues.
Overall, we finished with a portfolio return of 2.38%, earning us 6th out of 11th place. As we
compare our portfolio return to our peers, our overall returns were 141 basis points lower than the
average. Furthermore, our Alpha of 7.52% was the highest in comparison to our peers. However, our
Sharpe ratio, though slightly above average, illustrated that we took many risks to achieve our overall
returns. Lastly, as we compare our portfolio return against the benchmark weighted average return of
2.28%, our performance was slightly superior.
The team dynamics of our team evolved throughout the competition. Initially, our team adopted
a democratic process where a consensus was required prior to executing a trade. However, after dismal
returns, a decision consensus was no longer required for investing. This approach allowed us to become
more reactive to changes in the market on an individual basis and thus achieve greater returns.
Although we did not achieve the level of success we initially hoped for, we gained a considerable
amount of knowledge. We learned that seasonality was one of the most effective strategies whereas
events-basis strategy was one of the least. We also learned that leveraging and investing in riskier stocks
can be quite profitable when faced with time constraints, as we did in the last couple of weeks.
Furthermore, tools such as stop-loss and stop-buy orders are critical in limiting losses on investments.
Overall, we are confident that this competition has better prepared us for investing in the real world.

Online Stocker | 2

INVESTMENT STRATEGIES
Throughout the StockTrak assignment, our team decided to implement and experiment with a
large variety of active portfolio management strategies. At most points in time, our portfolio consisted of
multiple strategies implemented simultaneously in order to capitalize on the 10-week time frame.
To begin investing with StockTrak, we initially decided to use an events-basis strategy based on
upcoming earnings reports of companies. At the time, this was our best approach since we came into the
competition with limited knowledge of the course concepts and relied on the potential of instant gains
based on earnings releases. This was the reasoning behind the unsuccessful investments in Adobe
Systems Inc. (NYSE: ADBE) and Google Inc. (NYSE: GOOG), where we lost on both stocks (Appendix A).
Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. (NYSE: BABA) was also an event-basis purchase for us, as its IPO received
considerable hype. We ultimately invested in the IPO based on our emotional judgment. Our history
with Alibabas stock will be discussed in further detail in the learning section of this report. One event
we perhaps did profit on was the Ebola outbreak and thus the rising healthcare sector, due to which we
purchased Johnson and Johnson stock (NYSE: JNJ) and had gained a considerable amount (Appendix A).
Since the events-basis strategy was quite arbitrary, as positive returns are normally distributed
with negative returns, we decided to try out a new strategy: picking stocks based on seasonality. Since
holiday season, or shopping season, was fast approaching, we figured key stocks could benefit from the
months leading up to December. We decided to buy Apple Inc. (NYSE: AAPL), because of two reasons:
there were two new releases of both the iPhone and iPad in September-October; and sales for these
electronics were expected to rise due to holiday shopping. Furthermore, our investment in Apple was
also event-based because the firm had just announced the release of the iPhone 6. Thus we expected the
stock to benefit from the next earnings report, which it proved to do so. Similarly, Best Buy Co., Inc.
(NYSE: BBY) was also an incredibly successful seasonal-based purchase, as we expected earnings to
exceed expectations (Appendix A). Overall, this strategy proved to be quite successful given the short
time-frame of the competition.

Online Stocker | 3

We also planned to employ a sector rotation strategy, moving from technology stocks in
September to a well diversified portfolio later on. The rationale behind this included the fact that
September was a good month for new technology gadget releases, such as the iPhone 6, back-to-school
computers, and new fall technology trends. As October began, we began to diversify into other sectors
such as health care, financial services, and retail to minimize our risk exposure.
Another strategy that we initially looked forward to was value-investing. As it is often difficult to
determine the intrinsic value of companies due to the amount of modeling, assumptions, and time it
requires, we decided to use the comparable companies analysis approach. We looked at ratios such as
P/E, P/Sales, EV/EBITDA, EV/EBIT, and others, but decided to use the EV/EBITDA multiple. This
multiple is commonly used in the industry and indicates a companys enterprise value, the value
available to all investors without considering capital structure impacts. We used EV/EBITDA to
determine that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) and BP p.l.c. (NYSE: BP) were slightly undervalued
compared to their respective peer groups that we analyzed (Appendix B). We invested in shares of WalMart and sold them soon after, churning a profit. We then decided to use the same strategy for BP,
however, we did not achieve the same level of success, and disbanded the strategy because not only was
it time-consuming, but also required a larger time horizon for it to be theoretically successful.
The most effective strategy that we used was buying commodity-linked ETFs and their
respective levered ETFs. We initially used this in our last couple of weeks with incredible leverage as it
was our last chance to increase our overall return and rankings, thus we had no other option. We mainly
profited from short-selling oil ETFs such as UCO, USO and bought oil-inverse ETFs such as DWTI
(Appendix A). This strategy turned out to be quite profitable and allowed us to lift our relative rankings
higher, especially in the last couple of weeks where many of our competitors were also gaining.
Our team also decided to use a strategy to exploit the tax laws of the United States of America. In
the United States unqualified dividends (stocks held for 61 days prior to pay-out) get taxed more heavily
on capital gains. Our rationale was that if a stock was about to give out a large dividend pay-out, then the
people holding the stocks with unqualified dividends, would be inclined to sell the stocks right before

Online Stocker | 4

dividends were paid out to save on taxes. This would drive the price down and make the stock more
desirable. Even though we saw positive return of upwards of 3% (Appendix C), we did not rely too much
on this strategy as it was not easy to find stocks with high dividend payouts which were also highly
liquid. Also, this strategy would not work in the real world where we would be subjected to such taxes.
During the last few weeks of the competition, we implemented a strategy based on the trailing
effect of the highest gainers and losers. Under this strategy we would buy or short the largest losers or
gainers, respectively, based upon the causes behind the extreme price movements. We tried this
strategy on primarily RCPT and PLNR and saw a positive return on both stocks (Appendix D). However,
since the return on RCPT was low, we did not further pursue the strategy because we felt this strategy
relied mainly on luck, and historically this trailing effect was quite uncommon.
In regards to the tools we used for the execution of our trades and other research, StockTrak
was the main tool used to execute orders. Moreover, we heavily used Stop-Loss orders on most of our
long-trades, and Stop-Buy orders on majority of our short-sale trades (Appendix H). We implemented
this to limit our losses both ways, as our primary focus after the market downturn in mid-October
shifted from increasing value to loss avoidance. We also used the Best/Worst ETFs and Todays
Market Summary under the Research menu on StockTrak for some investment decisions, such as the
discovery of the Direxion Daily Gold Miners Bull ETF (NYSE: NUGT) short sale as it was the best gainer
on a specific day. Other information sources included Google Finance and Yahoo Finance for quick stock
price updates, and Yahoo News and Bloomberg Terminal/News for research.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
The StockTrak stock market simulation has been one of the largest learning experiences in our
lives, as agreed unanimously by all group members. In terms of strategies, we learned that the eventsbasis approach to maximizing returns is a hit or miss as there could be good earnings or earnings that
were missed. This causes the stock price for that particular company to either increase or decrease.
Thus, we suffered losses of almost $2,000 on Adobe Systems Inc., and $7,300 on Google Inc (Appendix

Online Stocker | 5

A). We also bought Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., as well as re-bought it again later, only to suffer another
large loss from its initial decline in post-IPO trading. Alibabas IPO was an event-basis trade, and we
bought into the hype early on, only to sell it on its decline before it began to rise rapidly. We now
learned to not buy companies based on current events, but rather only if we have some familiarity with
the companys past performance or a strong sense of its future performance.
Next, we learned that investing based on seasonality works quite well. As discussed multiple
times in class, there are many emotional investors playing in the stock market and their future
perception of a specific company will change rapidly in a dynamic environment. As we predicted Apple
and Best Buy to perform well in regards to holiday electronic sales, it seems as if our gains from both of
these stocks really proved our prediction right. The fundamental analysis and belief that the company
will be successful during a specific season is sometimes all that is needed for a profitable stock-pick.
Furthermore, the most important lesson we learned, also the highlight of our journey through
this stock market competition, was to not panic during a downturn. When the S&P/TSX Composite Index
and S&P 500 Index declined in October to its lowest point around October 16th, 2014 (Appendix E), our
whole group panicked as we were at the bottom relatively to the class, seeing losses of -6% to -7% on
the entire portfolio (Appendix G). Our portfolio was heavily invested in the large-cap technology sector
at this point (AAPL, GOOG, BABA, YHOO, and others), and had quite a high correlation with the S&P 500
(Appendix G). The largest loss of roughly $18,000 came from SPXL, a 3X Bull Levered-ETF linked to the
S&P 500 Index, a topic which we discuss more in-depth later. In the few days leading to the lowest point,
our group did not manage our portfolio as actively due to our FINE 3200 Investments midterm on
October 15th, thus we could not limit our losses. However, later in the week, we were afraid of our
portfolio declining further, and thus we sold most of our portfolio at large losses. Unfortunately, most of
those stocks recovered and ended up reaching even higher-than-before points. While we assume at least
some other groups did not sell at the bottom, we unfortunately did and missed the recovery. In the 2008
financial crisis, many investors suffered losses due to this very problem - and we had just mimicked it.

Online Stocker | 6

The next learning point comes from our difficult experience mentioned above, which is to
mitigate the exposure to downside risk. To do this, we used trade execution tools stop-loss and stopbuy orders which worked quite well (Appendix H). This really teaches us that investing is not as
simple as buying, holding, and selling a particular security, but active portfolio management involves the
utilization of multiple tools to reduce risk, alongside diversification. This was a perfect example of
applying one of our course concepts and seeing its impact. We also learned something else about our
team - that we were playing with a more risk-averse style, or with a higher A value in the utility
equation, at least for the time being.
One very interesting lesson learned was to be careful with using levered securities, particularly
levered-exchange traded funds (levered ETFs). In the case of SPXL, a 3X Bull linked to the S&P 500
index, we suffered a loss equal to three times the normal decline of the S&P 500 in October 2014. Our
original justification for buying this levered ETF was due to its solid upward trend for the past five years
(Appendix I). However, considering that this competition only ran for 10-weeks, interpreting a 5-year
stock chart was a mistake that we realized only after we bought the ETF. Also, we learned a new concept
called the levered ETF decay which is associated with the risk of built-in leverage in these types of
securities. After researching, we learned that over the long-term all levered ETFs typically decay to a
very low level since it suffers losses with increased stock market volatility, more than the index it
tracks.1 We also learned that they were meant to be held for day trading, and thus our exposure to these
risks discouraged us from continuing to hold the ETF. Again, we learned that we were quite risk-averse.
In the last couple of weeks, we abandoned our risk-averse strategy and learned that we were
willing to actually take on an incredible amount of risk in order to move upwards in rankings. We were
one of the first groups to take on a high amount of leverage, initially at around $500,000 of additional
debt, but in the last two weeks we were up to $800-000 to $900,000. We were essentially using our
maximum debt capacity in order to hopefully escape our troubled ranking at the bottom. By using
leverage and buying or shorting commodities such as oil, natural gas, and even gold, as described earlier,

1 Don't Use Levered ETFs... (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2014, from http://dqydj.net/dont-use-leveraged-etfs-unless/

Online Stocker | 7

we somehow made the right decisions. Our results speak for themselves, recovering from -3.10% to
netting a positive return of 2.38% at the end of the competition (Appendix G).
Another important lesson we learned from the investment challenge was to apply investment
strategies that complement our timeframe. Having read The Intelligent Investor before the start of term,
we were excited to implement the value investing strategies outlined in the book. However, we could
not effectively implement the strategy due to the time constraint of ten weeks that was placed upon the
investment challenge. There simply was not enough time for us to wait for underpriced stocks to be
realized of their full potential. Furthermore, this strategy required a lot of research and was very time
consuming. Thus, while we continue to believe in the importance of value investing, we have learned
that it is not an effective strategy to implement in the short term.
Lastly, a very important and humbling lesson we learned was about the luck factor. It is
extremely difficult to predict the future. Hence, there is always uncertainty surrounding if a certain
strategy implemented will be effective. For instance, we decided to short-sell an oil stock called UCO.
However, the member responsible for executing the trade accidentally bought the stock, yet we ended
up earning roughly $4,000 on this mistake. We encountered a similar situation with regards to exchange
rates. We predicted that the US currency was very strong and would decline over the ten week time
span. Thus, we invested money in foreign stocks even though we expected to lose in foreign exchange
but in nearly every situation, the US currency became stronger and thus we were able to profit despite
predicting an opposite outcome. Thus, in both instances the unpredictability of the future or the luck
factor enabled us to return a profit.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
We decided to use two methods to evaluate our performance in the assignment. Firstly, we
compared our performance against our peers by looking at the following metrics: Sharpe Ratio, Alpha,
Beta and Returns. Based on the calculations, our returns were far lower than the average returns of our
competitors. We scored 141 basis points less than the average. However, we attained the highest Alpha,

Online Stocker | 8

at 7.52%, in comparison to our peers. This was 2.41% well above the average class Alpha. As such, we
managed to uncover the highest amount of extraordinary returns as compared to other teams. However,
we undertook a huge amount of risk to achieve the high alpha. This can be exemplified by our Sharpe
Ratio of 0.91, which was only slightly above the class average of 0.67. Thus, this reveals that our
portfolio had a lot more risk associated to the excess returns we made in comparison to our peers.
Furthermore, our Beta of 0.88 was slightly higher than the average of our peers of 0.8 attributing again
to the greater risk we undertook (Appendix J). Our progressive overall return, Alpha ranking, and
Sharpe ratio are shown in Appendix M, N, and O, respectively.
Secondly, we evaluated our performance in comparison to market returns. As we purchased
stocks in the United States, Canada and India, a weighted average of three indices related to each
respective country was used to determine the weighted holding period return. The indices used to
calculate the weighted average were: S&P 500, the S&P TSX and the NIFTY. According to the results, the
holding period return was 2.28%. As such, our holding period return of 2.38% was slightly higher,
demonstrating that we performed quite well against this benchmark (Appendix K).

TEAM DYNAMICS
Despite our teams continually changing inner dynamics, there were two clear distinct phases in
the decision making process. Initially, at the start of the competition we adopted a democratic process
where members would propose investments and a consensus was required for the investment to
proceed forward. However, after the mid-October downturn, returns were dismal and a drastic change
was required. This change came about in the form of greater independence to group members, as
members were no longer required to reach a consensus on investments. The results of this change were
phenomenal. Prior to the change our portfolio return was -3.34% whereas the S&P500 Index return was
14.09. After the change, our portfolio returns exceeded that of the market by 344 basis points.
Therefore, with greater autonomy, group members were able to better react to market changes and thus

Online Stocker | 9

achieve greater returns. In the future, we would allow members greater independence in determining
the best investments.
As successful as the independent decision making process was, it did have its shortcomings.
Issues arose around the lack of capital to conduct trades, however, this was quickly resolved through
leveraging and selling stocks that were slow movers or did not generate sizeable gains.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Our participation in this investment challenge left us with a variety of key takeaways:
Know the time horizon. Investing strategies need to be adjusted according to the timeframe given. As
our objective throughout the challenge was to maximize returns within the short span of ten weeks, we
were unable to effectively implement certain strategies such as value investing which are not
necessarily effective in the short term but can be highly effective in the long term.
Do not let emotions influence your investing decisions. It is highly difficult to remain emotionless
while investing. As described previously, when the markets declined in mid-October, a great deal of our
portfolio was sold at a loss. However, most of the stocks eventually recovered but we could not reap
those profits. So, while we learned it is difficult to remain emotionless, learning to do so is essential in
ensuring that all investing decisions being taken are rational.
Fundamentals and knowledge can be rewarding. Some investors may happen to know a great deal
about a particular industry or company and also know how it should perform over a specific time. In our
case, we had the underlying knowledge, to a degree, that Apple and Best Buy could perform well in
November due to the large upcoming holiday season, and the markets in general felt the same way.
The luck factor. Lastly, one of the most important takeaways is that luck plays a key factor in how
different portfolio managers perform. Valuations and research can help mitigate any unnecessary risks
when investing, however some investors may simply get lucky and outperform the market. As it is
essentially impossible to predict future outcomes, being a skilled investor does not necessarily mean the
same thing as being a successful investor

Online Stocker | 10

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A STOCK RANKINGS BASED UPON RETURNS
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Name
AAPL
UCO
HXU
XST
BBY
DWTI
PLNR
NUGT
HPQ
JNJ
AIRT
UNG
URI
SPXL
WMT
OIL
GNI
XIC
DBO
ALL
XMD
FAS
USO

Amount Made
$
15,434.20
$
10,958.00
$
9,713.17
$
8,065.44
$
7,982.00
$
7,684.00
$
6,150.00
$
3,480.00
$
3,391.00
$
2,929.50
$
2,720.00
$
2,660.00
$
2,256.50
$
1,992.00
$
1,972.90
$
1,290.00
$
1,220.00
$
1,164.23
$
978.00
$
732.00
$
665.61
$
414.00
$
412.00

Ranking
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

Name
RCPT
BSV
AGN
EPU
XID
SU
BBRY
FFG
ADBE
URA
ATK
BX
NFLX
BP
BCE
XIU
TREE
CENX
BABA
UGAZ
MSFT
YHOO
GOOG

Amount Made
$
19.00
$
4.40
-$
533.60
-$
571.00
-$
702.86
-$
866.00
-$
1,210.00
-$
1,655.00
-$
1,907.00
-$
2,520.00
-$
2,825.00
-$
3,007.60
-$
3,112.00
-$
3,148.00
-$
3,237.48
-$
3,427.80
-$
3,828.00
-$
3,947.00
-$
4,452.00
-$
5,870.00
-$
6,518.00
-$
8,056.00
-$
9,122.00

Online Stocker | 11

APPENDIX B VALUATIONS FOR VALUE INVESTING

Value Investing (in Billions)
Company
EV
EBITDA EV/EBITDA
COST (Costco Wholesale Corp.)
$59.16
$2.06
13.92
TGT (Target Corp.)
59.03
5.73
10.34
WMT (Walmart Inc.)
323.36
35.70
9.06
Industry Average:
$147.18
$14.50
11.11

Value Investing (in Billions)

Company
EV
EBITDA
CVX (Chevron Canada)
$228.39
$38.58
Shell (Shell Canada)
241.34
48.08
BP (British Petroleum)
149.7
32.26
HES (Hess Corp.)
26.72
5.9
XOM (Exxon Mobil Corp.)
415.97
60.81
COP (ConocoPhillips)
99.36
21.74
Industry Average:
$206.48
$39.64

EV/EBITDA
5.92
5.02
4.64
4.53
6.84
4.57
5.19

APPENDIX C EXAMPLE OF EXPLOITING US TAX POLICY

Online Stocker | 12

APPENDIX D TRAILING EFFECTS OF RCPT AND PLNR

RCPT

PLNR

Online Stocker | 13

APPENDIX E CHARTS OF TSX/S&P COMP. INDEX AND S&P 500

INDEX

Online Stocker | 14

APPENDIX F CHART OF RELATIVE RANKING

Relative Ranking
13
11

Rank

9
7
5
3
1

Date

*Lower on this chart is better (i.e. closer to rank 1). It can be seen that towards the end we had
dramatically improved our ranking relative to the class. It is also important to note that the relative
ranking consists of only 10 other competitors however we included the entire 13 competitor-base
(including us) for the ease of creating this chart.

APPENDIX G CORRELATION OF PORTFOLIO TO THE S&P 500

Online Stocker | 15

APPENDIX H EXAMPLE OF STOP-SELL EXECUTION

APPENDIX I COMPARISON OF S&P 500 INDEX TO BEAR ETF

*Sample Graph: Green line represents the S&P 500 Index (2010-2011), Red line represents a BearETF. Note how the ETF starts at the same point but finishes at a significantly different point (-20%
vs. 0%).

APPENDIX J COMPARISON OF OUR RETURNS TO CLASS AVERAGE

Returns
Adjusted Returns
Sharpe ratio
Beta
Alpha

Average
3.18%
3.79%
0.67
0.8
2.41%

Online Stocker
2.38%
2.38%
0.91
0.88
7.52%

Online Stocker | 16

APPENDIX K BENCHMARK WEIGHTED PORTFOLIO RETURN

S&P 500
TSX
Nifty
Cash

Total Weight Total HPR Return Weighted Return

0.641252
3.93%
2.73%
0.133102
-2.71%
-0.36%
0.012839
0.87%
0.01%
0.212806
0.51%
0.08%
2.28%

TABLE OF FOREIGN STOCKS:

TSX

NIFTY

Name of
Stock
BCE
XIC
XST
XIU
XIU (2)
HXU
XID

# Days
29
12
18
9
17
32
17

Avg Amount
59000
71365
49800
97620
93750
93178
50600

% of days
0.432
0.179
0.268
0.134
0.253
0.477
0.253

% of
Weight
Portfolio
0.059
0.025
0.0713
0.012
0.0498
0.013
0.0976
0.013
0.0937
0.023
0.0931
0.044
0.050
0.012

Online Stocker | 17

APPENDIX L STOCKTRAK GAME STATISTICAL INFORMATION

STOCKTRAK GAME Statistical Information
Overall Portfolio Return (Geometric):
2.38%
Total # Transactions during game
98
Overall Portfolio Return (Geometric Mean 10 Weeks):
0.39%
Peak # of Securities in Portfolio
18
Sharp Ratio:
0.91
Final # of Securities in Portfolio
16
10-week RoR Std. Deviation (calc weekly)
1.39%
Largest 1-week % Portfolio Loss
-6.17%
Largest 1 week % Portfolio Gain
1.97%
------------------- Stocks: Long Positions Only ---------------Average $$ INVESTED Long
$72,528.73
Peak $$ INVESTED Long $745,494.55
# of Long Winners
11
% Gain on Winners
5.27%
# of Long Losers
15
% Loss on Losers
-5.18%
---------------- Stock: Short Positions Only -----------------Average $$ INVESTED Short
$84,945.00
Peak $$ INVESTED Short $169,890.00
# of Short Winners
1
% Gain on Winners
0.47%
# of Short Losers
1
% Loss on Losers
-4.69%
---------------- UnLevered ETF Positions -----------------Average $$ INVESTED Long
$83,380.24
Peak $$ INVESTED Long $573,272.80
# of Long Winners
6
% Gain on Winners
4.29%
# of Long Losers
4
% Loss on Losers
-2.29%
Average $$ INVESTED Short
# of Short Winners
# of Short Losers

$92,768.00
3
0

Peak $$ INVESTED Short $278,304.00

% Gain on Winning positions
4.75%
% Loss on Losing positions
0%

STOCKTRAK GAME Statistical Information Continued

--------------------- Long Levered ETFs (2-3x) ----------------Average $$ Long-ETFs
$89,317.17
Peak $$ L-ETF
# of ETF Winners
2
% Gain on Winners
# of ETF Losers
1
% Loss on Losers

$267,951.50
1.29%
-7.16%

--------------------- Inverse Levered ETFs (2x or 3x) ----------------Average $$ Short-ETFs

$87,234.00
Peak $$ L-ETF
# of ETF Winners
2
% Gain on Winners
# of ETF Losers
0
% Loss on Losers

$174,468.00
6.40%
0

---------------------- Cash Balances (nearest 000's) ----------------------Average CASH held (excluding Margin) $ 212,806.26
Average $$ in Margin Account
Peak $$ in Margin Account

$258,519.86
$668,464.74

Cash level at end of Week 2 (ex margin)

Cash level at end of Week 5 (ex margin)
Cash level at end of Week 8 (ex margin)

$518,301
$480,949
$21,133

Cash level at end of Week 4 (ex margin)

Cash level at end of Week 6 (ex margin)
Cash level at end of Week 9 (ex-margin)

--------------- Asset Mix by Currency (approx. weights) ------------Week 5

Week 10
% in USD
78%
% in CAD
22%
% in Euro
0%
% in HK$
0%
% in all Other
0%

$42,863
$210,997
$0.00

64%
36%
0%
0%
0.1%

Online Stocker | 18

APPENDIX M RANKINGS AND PORTFOLIO RETURNS

October 27, 2014

November 6, 2014

November 7, 2014

November 13, 2014

November 20, 2014

November 21, 2014

Online Stocker | 19

APPENDIX N RANKINGS AND ALPHA

October 21, 2014

November 12, 2014

November 20, 2014

APPENDIX O RANKINGS AND SHARPE RATIO

October 21, 2014

November 20, 2014

Online Stocker | 20