Check out this complete breakdown in financial logic:
We’re starting with the First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG), the most prominent fund investing in natural gas stocks.
Here’s the top holdings list. A mix of limited partnerships and larger energy companies.
Now, here’s the United States Natural Gas Fund (UNG), which tracks the price of natural gas (NGQ26).
Do you see what I see? UNG looks rather droopy, which is not at all what I’d expect, given the decent trend emerging in FCG.
UNG does not invest in stocks. It owns futures and swaps contracts that give it indirect access to natural gas.
How can FCG look healthy while UNG is falling apart?
This exact divergence trips up retail traders constantly. It comes down to this: FCG buys businesses that generate cash flow, while UNG buys futures contracts that bleed cash. They aren’t just different products, they are entirely different asset classes.
FCG Isn’t Natural Gas. It’s an Equity and Oil Hybrid.
The lesson here is don’t judge an ETF by its cover. Despite its ticker and name, FCG does not track the spot price of natural gas. It is an equity fund holding 45 public energy companies.
And, because oil prices have been supported by Middle East geopolitical risks and high power-demand narratives, these E&P and midstream companies are swimming in free cash flow, paying out solid dividends, and buying back their own stock. FCG is behaving like a resilient energy equity ETF because that is exactly what it is.
UNG, on the other hand, does not own a single share of stock, a single pipeline, or a single cubic foot of physical gas. It holds front-month natural gas futures contracts traded on the NYMEX. This exposes UNG to two of the most destructive forces in commodity trading: contango and roll yield decay.
Natural gas is notoriously expensive to store. Because physical inventories often run high during shoulder seasons, future delivery months are typically priced higher than the expiring current-month contract (a market condition called contango).
Every single month, UNG’s managers are contractually forced to sell the expiring, cheaper near-month futures contract, and buy the next-month contract at a higher price. So, it has a structural flaw. Decay acts as a major drag on UNG’s value.
Even if spot natural gas prices simply trade sideways, UNG will bleed value, month after month. It is a tactical tool built for short-term day trading, not an investment meant to be held over time.
As oil producers pump continuously to capture higher crude prices, they inadvertently flood the market with associated natural gas. This keeps spot gas prices trapped near low levels (crushing UNG), even while the oil producers themselves remain wildly profitable (boosting FCG).
Never confuse a company that mines or moves a commodity with the raw commodity contract itself. Protect your capital by matching the tool to your actual investment goal.
And, since UNG has an inverse ETF, the Ultrashort Bloomberg Natural Gas -2X ETF (KOLD), that might just set up a fantastic “arbitrage” trade, if those chart patterns do indeed follow through. That is, FCG continues higher and UNG lower.
It is easy to see why this could be a rare situation for traders. Looking at the above table, a combination of FCG and KOLD allows an investor to win both ways.
This has a lot of risks, given the inverse and leveraged nature of KOLD, and the fact that it is reset daily. So you have the “math of loss” working against you if natural gas rises and KOLD drops, compounded by the strange but true interaction between nat gas and nat gas stocks.
Oh, and natural gas is perhaps the most volatile of the energy-related commodity types. Risk is everywhere. And that’s why looking at ETFs… all of them… for what they are, and diving deeper than the masses, is a very timely approach for traders to adopt.
Rob Isbitts is a semi-retired CIO, former fiduciary investment advisor, and Barchart columnist. Check out his other work at ETFYourself.com (featuring the Fresh Charts weekly trading post), and ROAR.PiTrade.com, helping investors to better-manage their own portfolios.
On the date of publication, Rob Isbitts did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. For more information please view the Barchart Disclosure Policy here.