# Cathie Wood sucks at her job



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The numbers show that Cathie Wood sucks at her job and is a failure. She provides inferior risk-adjusted returns to a dumb, low fee index.

Let's compare her flagship ARKK to a tech-focused major index, QQQ

Going back to inception, ARKK's sharpe ratio (the risk adjusted return) was 0.89 compared to 1.24 for QQQ. This shows that, per unit of risk, QQQ was a superior investment.

Applying only 25% leverage to QQQ beats ARKK:

QQQ leveraged has returned 27.3% CAGR with a max drawdown -20.5%
ARKK has returned only 26.4% CAGR with a max drawdown -30.6%

*And this isn't theoretical. One can easily leveraged QQQ using the QLD fund, and this too has been superior to ARK.*

Here's a comparison of ARKK and QLD. They have similar risks (similar drawdown and volatility) and yet QLD has a far superior return.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

On CNBC, Josh Brown described Cathie Wood's investing style as her reading Reddit and other social media for the most hyped stocks and then rushing out and putting them all in one basket. He said almost every holding in her ARKK fund is an unproven meme stock.

Her funds are plunging with no bottom in sight. The holdings in her fund have cratered and many investors are withdrawing cash.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear she suspends withdrawals to sell stocks to pay the withdrawals.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

james4beach said:


> One can easily leveraged QQQ using the QLD fund


Good luck with QLD though if we have another bubble burst like in 2000. That 2x leverage on QQQ would mean a drawdown of at least -98% when applied to the 2000s.


----------



## Thal81 (Sep 5, 2017)

For a good laugh, look at ARKK, especially fund outflows in the volume chart. People are getting out of there at record pace, we may be witnessing a failing fund.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

Your numbers just show another misleading comparison. You compare her fund to a fund plus 25% leverage and somehow think that is a fair comparison. Her fund beats QQQ easily w the same leverage or w no leverage. ex below is w both leveraged.










Misleading also as they are different types of funds - an index w 100 stocks vs a concentrated portfolio of 35-55 stocks. Smaller funds will naturally have more volatility.

QLD is a 2x levered fund and not a regular 1x ETF so they can't be compared either. QLD isn't even designed for 'buy and hold ' and only recommended as a "short-term tactical instrument "


QLD ETF Report: Ratings, Analysis, Quotes, Holdings | ETF.com


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The numbers show that Cathie Wood sucks at her job and is a failure.


Not sure, her real job is to attract piles of money and get paid massive fees. She's doing that quite well.



> She provides inferior risk-adjusted returns to a dumb, low fee index.


Because she's a crappy investor.

The thing is, she grabs headlines, because of her ability to sell funds, but she doesn't actually understand what she's working on, at least to the level of the real experts, who she openly disagrees with.


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

james4beach said:


> The numbers show that Cathie Wood sucks at her job and is a failure. She provides inferior risk-adjusted returns to a dumb, low fee index.
> 
> Let's compare her flagship ARKK to a tech-focused major index, QQQ
> 
> ...


To be fair one should really evaluate her against other actively managed tech ETFs. Her micro skill is there. The macro decision - to invest in an active fund as opposed to an index - lies with the investor who purchased the ETF.


----------



## Buckwheat (Dec 11, 2021)

I expect that if people knew the origin of the word "sucks" as used in such a context, most would not use it. It was a 1970s expression which referred to a particular sex act. Like so many words, it passed into the language with most people unaware of the meaning.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> Good luck with QLD though if we have another bubble burst like in 2000. That 2x leverage on QQQ would mean a drawdown of at least -98% when applied to the 2000s.


I'm not endorsing QLD, would not hold it myself. I'm just showing that it's a leveraged QQQ and how it also has a superior risk-adjusted return to ARKK.

You can just hold QQQ, and already you beat ARKK in risk-adjusted terms.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Covariance said:


> To be fair one should really evaluate her against other actively managed tech ETFs. Her micro skill is there. The macro decision - to invest in an active fund as opposed to an index - lies with the investor who purchased the ETF.


Uh no, if you can't beat an index fund, you're not justifying your fees.
That's a well established norm. It also makes a lot of sense.


To be fair the time period is really too short to be comparing equity returns.

There are "active" funds that manage according to a formula or nonstandard index. How do these fit in your comparison?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> There are "active" funds that manage according to a formula or nonstandard index. How do these fit in your comparison?


If you're interested in this, you might want to check out some of the content from Ben Felix. For example one can match exposures of known factors (market cap size, growth or value, that kind of thing) to benchmark to an appropriate index. There are regression techniques, or mixing of factor funds from Vanguard, that can be used as equivalent benchmarks.

It won't work if the active fund uses something like tactical/dynamic asset allocation (which means they do whatever the hell they feel like doing) but it does work if comparing to something like a US Growth or Value fund.

Ben Felix has repeatedly pointed out that there is no evidence of any kind of skill in active management. Perhaps before fees a tiny bit, but NOT after fees.

An interesting thing about this kind of comparison is that if you actually analyze the factor exposures of some of the best long-term fund manager track records, you find that they either perform on par with, or worse, than an equivalent factor index benchmark.

This analysis can even be applied to Buffett. I don't have the paper handy but much of his returns are explained by the value premium, which makes sense as he was one of the first and best disciplined value investors. Buffett still has some alpha, but not nearly as much as commonly believed. He shouldn't be compared to the S&P 500 but rather to an appropriate value index.

Which means you can get the same from Vanguard or iShares. And you probably should


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

Morningstar does an annual Mind the Gap report, comparing the return of investment funds (i.e. time weighted return) to the return of investors in the fund (i.e. money weighted return).

ARKK: An Object Lesson in How Not To Invest


Morningstar said:


> ARKK: An Object Lesson in How Not To Invest
> Over the past five years, for example, *the fund’s 41.3% annualized return places it among the top five best-performing U.S. equity funds and ETFs*, and it trounced the S&P 500 (the benchmark listed in its prospectus) by more than 15 percentage points per year. After the adjusting for the timing of cash inflows and outflows, though, *we estimate that investors earned less than a fourth of that return.*


Note that the article is dated Dec 13, 2021, so it's even worse now.

Cathie's not the only dummie.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Thal81 said:


> For a good laugh, look at ARKK, especially fund outflows in the volume chart. People are getting out of there at record pace, we may be witnessing a failing fund.


I think everyone should have run when she started arguing with Elon and Dorsey.


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Uh no, if you can't beat an index fund, you're not justifying your fees.
> That's a well established norm. It also makes a lot of sense.
> 
> 
> ...


I am merely making the point that someone who has cash to invest bears responsibilty for choosing the investment class and the vehicle. These are macro or top level decisions. And she didn’t make them. She makes decisions about how to invest the money given to her. Thsee are micro decisions and her performance should be evaluated against others trying to do the same thing.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

MrMatt said:


> Not sure, her real job is to attract piles of money and get paid massive fees. She's doing that quite well.
> 
> 
> Because she's a crappy investor.
> ...


No she isn't. If she was such a crappy investor why are other huge ETF firms copying the strategy of her funds? BMO, Evolve, Horizons etc. Not sure who she disagrees w either kook Michael Burry ? She, Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey all seem to agree on bitcoin's future.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> Cathie Wood sucks at her job and is a failure.


You should buy SARK (short ARKK) then, rather then insulting her. Did you? Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise what is the point of this thread? Ark investors, invest long term (should), DCA (to lower their cost) and not hope to get rich overnight.
There always will be people with (spare) money (hoping to get rich quick) who tend to buy high and sell low. Those are not investors, those are gamblers or unfortunate speculator.
just my opinion.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> QQQ leveraged has returned 27.3% CAGR with a max drawdown -20.5%
> ARKK has returned only 26.4% CAGR with a max drawdown -30.6%


What was your personal rate of return since 2014 (ARKK was created), did you beat the index and ARKK? I usually assume that if someone criticized something, that means they did better.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ukrainiandude said:


> You should buy SARK (short ARKK) then, rather then insulting her. Did you? Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise what is the point of this thread? Ark investors, invest long term (should), DCA (to lower their cost) and not hope to get rich overnight.


SARK is an exotic fund that uses derivatives or something to engineer a reverse return, and probably with daily tracking. That's not a reliable way to bet on the reverse.

Taking an inverse bet is not the right thing to do with bad investments.

What is the point of this thread? To point out that a celebrated active manager actually has poor results. Her returns are inferior to QQQ. So if you like this kind of investment, buy QQQ or XLK instead, since these have superior risk-adjusted returns.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> buy QQQ or XLK instead, since these have superior risk-adjusted returns.


a fund's past performance *does not necessarily predict future results*


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> a fund's past performance *does not necessarily predict future results*


Doesn't stop Cathy Wood to publicly and confidently predict 400% returns in her fund over the next 5 years. She is going to have to up that to 500% now and maybe 600% soon to maintain her past performance.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> a fund's past performance *does not necessarily predict future results*


But when someone says stupid things, and gets bad results for years, that does suggest that exceptional performance is unlikely.


----------



## investor65 (Aug 3, 2021)

I've been watching her ETFs for about 4 years now. For a while, she was absolutely destroying QQQ. She made some incredible calls. Her calls on TSLA were mocked and laughed at for a long time but she kept proving them wrong. She even convinced Musk to not take TSLA private. The TSLA story is not over by any means. It's still doing fine, unlike most of tech.
She was the first big investor on Bitcoin. I remember looking at ARKW about 4 or 5 years ago. When I saw that GBTC was the first (or second?) top holding, I wasn't interested. I thought Bitcoin was a scam (still do lol). What happened? BTC kept going up. Later it crashed 80% and she bought more. She was right again. 
I will be honest. Another reason I didn't buy in ARKW back then was because I wasn't comfortable with a female money manager. Let's face successful money managers are pretty rare. But I wish I did buy in back then.
The point I'm making is she made some incredible calls, and I became a big fan. I bought in ARKW ARKG and ARKF at various times.
But later I got out because similar ETFs were actually outperforming her.
IBUY was one, and I was able to make some good money on that.
It had less volatility than the ARK funds too.
Last year, some prominent investors were loudly predicting the downfall of tech because of rising interest rates. Rich Bernstein was one.
She has lost alot of credibility since the tech bubble has burst. 
It's too bad. I think she's a nice person with good intentions. I still respect her. It was amazing to see this manager who I was watching suddenly become one of Wall Street's most prominent investors.
But she has lost tons of credibility since small tech has imploded.
Speaking of small tech, I think we are setting up for a great buying opportunity later this year. I'm looking at PLTR, CVNA, SHOP SE SQ.
Who knows? In 2 years, she may rise from the ashes. 
Tech is not going to disappear, but it's gonna keep going down.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

investor65 said:


> I will be honest. Another reason I didn't buy in ARKW back then was because I wasn't comfortable with a female money manager.


Really?
You let sexism influence your financial decisions?
I have to say I've never done a gender check on any investments.
One of my very first investing wins was Lakeport brewing with a female CEO 



> It's too bad. I think she's a nice person with good intentions. I still respect her. It was amazing to see this manager who I was watching suddenly become one of Wall Street's most prominent investors.
> But she has lost tons of credibility since small tech has imploded.
> Speaking of small tech, I think we are setting up for a great buying opportunity later this year. I'm looking at PLTR, CVNA, SHOP SE SQ.
> Who knows? In 2 years, she may rise from the ashes.
> Tech is not going to disappear, but it's gonna keep going down.


She'll likely rise from the ashes again.
I think she's a gambler that gets lucky and unlucky. But she's REALLY GOOD at selling

I won't link to them, but there is some excellent criticism of her approach and history out there.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> She'll likely rise from the ashes again.


Why bother? I think this was her retirement gambit. ARK has something like $24 billion under management. Even if her cut of that is 0.25% fee, she's set for life.

Wall Street makes a lot of money off bull market manias, and that's exactly what she did. This is why Wall Street loves strong, exciting markets. Lots of hype, lots of investors chasing returns, and she gathered huge AUM, charging them 0.75% which is 4X the fees of regular index ETFs.

That's the Wall Street game and it doesn't matter what's hot. Could be tech stocks, IPOs, bitcoin, who cares. Always the same game, and the suckers always buy it and hand over their money.

Chamath is another charlatan (University of Waterloo alumni by the way), and he chose to go the SPAC route. Every bull market cycle brings new opportunities for these parasites.

And retail investors wonder why they never seem to make any money over the years. It's because retail investors get overly excited and buy into "get rich quick" ideas. They don't follow through with long term strategies. Instead they chase returns, pile into whatever is popularized in the media, buy things they don't understand, and pay high fees. They also fail to understand that Wall Street people are playing them like fools.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> ARK


I looked into some of holdings of 3 different ARK ETFs 
there are quite a few stocks that I don’t think will despair overnight.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I work in the space industry and I still haven't figured out why she has John Deere in the space ETF 🤷‍♂️

I like to look at ETF holdings for ideas but it never makes sense to me to buy a small package of holdings. Like I get using ETFs to get broad exposure to international/emerging markets etc but for small ETFs I'd rather pick and choose. I'd like to have some more exposure to the Genomic stuff and her ETFs are a good place to get ideas for example

I think long term these ETFs will do fine. I don't think it's fair to blame her when people bought into the peak hype top instead of dollar cost averaging


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Cathie Wood's ARK buys the dip in Tesla shares after months of selling

Hmmmm... can Warren Buffett's mantra of "Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful" be applied here?


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> Hmmmm... can Warren Buffett's mantra of "Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful" be applied here?


Or as Baron Rothschild reportedly said: "Buy when there's blood in the streets, even if the blood is your own."


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Tesla shares declined for good reasons, but maybe Wood's knows better than the automotive analysts.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

GreatLaker said:


> Or as Baron Rothschild reportedly said: "Buy when there's blood in the streets, even if the blood is your own."


 ... yeah, I'm doing that in the "What Are you Buying?" thread.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> Cathie Wood's ARK buys the dip in Tesla shares after months of selling
> 
> Hmmmm... can Warren Buffett's mantra of "Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful" be applied here?


Is it fearful to be afraid of triple digit P/Es in a market which is seeing hundreds of billions of inflows of new capital from credible competitors? 

Admittedly it has come down to a P/E closer to 100. But capital expenditures are rising. And they will face a lot of competition and cost increases for materials. If you think they can still triple their earnings in the next 3-5 years before growth slows, while still obtaining regulatory credits, and accept an incredibly high P/E of 35, then you have an expected return of 0% over that time. 

Modify those variables as you see fit, but it's a long way from the 600% predicted average growth ARKK needs to meet their own targets.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

doctrine said:


> Is it fearful to be afraid of triple digit P/Es in a market which is seeing hundreds of billions of inflows of new capital from credible competitors?


No kidding. Being fearful and buying when there's blood in the streets is referring to situations where people are *horrified* of stocks, people are losing their shirts and losing all faith in the stock market.

An example of that would be 2009-2012 when most people I know had given up on stocks entirely, hated them, had such a bad experience that they swore they will never touch them again.

But today, the US market P/E ratio is still sky high, and growth stocks (especially tech growth) is insanely high valuations. This is not the blood in the streets scenario, not even close. People still love stocks.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> the US market P/E ratio is still sky high,


if estimating only PE one should be buying russian stock market, it has PE of 6 for the last ten years. And It has gone nowhere compared with the US stock market. Even Canadian stock market also resources and financial done much better.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Why bother? I think this was her retirement gambit. ARK has something like $24 billion under management. Even if her cut of that is 0.25% fee, she's set for life.


She was probably pretty much set for life last time she ran her funds into the ground.

I think at her level, most of these guys are having too much fun playing the game.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> She was probably pretty much set for life last time she ran her funds into the ground.
> 
> I think at her level, most of these guys are having too much fun playing the game.


Well her last hedge fund failed. Cathie is a loser who previously had a tech hedge fund during the tech bubble, but all the investors pulled their money. She had to go find another job.

This is probably the first (and only) big win, in her career.

You're right, they're having too much fun playing the game.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> Tesla shares declined for good reasons, but maybe Wood's knows better than the automotive analysts.


TSLA now has the most productive factory in America using an abandoned factory from pre-bankrupt GM

GM is no longer the most productive vehicle manufacturer in America and TSLA is about to open 2 brand new Giga factories

The taxpayers need to let GM go bankrupt this time. The Hummer EV is a literal joke.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> TSLA now has the most productive factory in America using an abandoned factory from pre-bankrupt GM
> 
> GM is no longer the most productive vehicle manufacturer in America and TSLA is about to open 2 brand new Giga factories


It really matters how you define "productive".








Tesla's California factory built more cars than any other North American auto plant in 2021


The electric-car maker's plant in California pumped out more cars each week than the biggest factories run by Ford, Toyota, and GM.




www.businessinsider.com





They put out more cars, but they use more people to do it.. so are they really more productive?
It actually looks like they might be less productive (staff/vehicle), they just have more people working there.

Realistically I'd have expected a Tesla assembly plant to assemble a vehicle with much fewer staff, since there are fewer parts and Elon was talking a lot about automation. I'm actually surprised that they have heavier labour requirements.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Realistically I'd have expected a Tesla assembly plant to assemble a vehicle with much fewer staff, since there are fewer parts and Elon was talking a lot about automation. I'm actually surprised that they have heavier labour requirements.


We can armchair about things we know nothing about or we can wait and see what an actual Giga factory will do soon

The armchair skeptics said Tesla would never be profitable.. and now they are making cars for $36k and selling them DIRECT for the highest gross margin while GM bleeds sales

GM is like Blockbuster laughing at Netflix right now


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> We can armchair about things we know nothing about or we can wait and see what an actual Giga factory will do soon
> 
> The armchair skeptics said Tesla would never be profitable.. and now they are making cars for $36k and selling them DIRECT for the highest gross margin while GM bleeds sales
> 
> GM is like Blockbuster laughing at Netflix right now


I don't get the comparison.

GM never turned down the opportunity to buy Tesla
GM was producing EV's years before Tesla.

Also, since you replied to me, it appears you're suggesting that I'm one of those armchair experts.
I never said Tesla would never be profitable. 

Also the point that a bigger factory, with more people working there produces more vehicles than a smaller factory with fewer people working there shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. 
Suggesting Tesla is somehow a leader in production because they simply put more people into a plant is silly.
Calling it a GigaFactory, well that's good marketing, and Elon is a master marketer, maybe not Trump level, but he's up there.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I don't get the comparison.


How about this one


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> How about this one


The chart is really showing a valuation difference. GM has a P/E of around 7, Tesla around 300. 
Honestly as long as GM "limps" along with a billion dollars a month in profit, I'd be pretty happy with that.
Tesla has to 40x their profit, which is a pretty big ask.

But really what does that have to do with Blockbuster laughing at Netflix?
Blockbuster laughing at Netflix was because blockbuster didn't see the potential for streaming, and a no-late-fee world.

There is nothing, other than the charging network, that Tesla is doing today that GM hasn't been doing for at least decades.

On charging networks, I see the benefits of doing it yourself and having someone else do it.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> There is nothing, other than the charging network, that Tesla is doing today that GM hasn't been doing for at least decades.


The average Canadian is really out of touch I'm afraid

This is like saying there is nothing amazon did that Sears didn't do because they made a webpage

They're not even in the same league


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> The average Canadian is really out of touch I'm afraid
> 
> This is like saying there is nothing amazon did that Sears didn't do because they made a webpage


Well actually Sears was the Amazon of mail order, but they mismanaged their position.



> They're not even in the same league


Hardly.
I think GM is playing catchup in some aspects, but for many they're right there.
They both have self driving tech that is almost ready.
GM makes more vehicles with fewer employees per vehicle, GM has lower priced EVs.
GM is actually also shipping an electric pickup truck, where is Teslas?

Again you seem overly enamoured with shiny and new.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Buckwheat said:


> I expect that if people knew the origin of the word "sucks" as used in such a context, most would not use it. It was a 1970s expression which referred to a particular sex act. Like so many words, it passed into the language with most people unaware of the meaning.


I expect that if people knew the origin of the word...." Buckwheat"

What does it mean to be called buckwheat?
Otherwise, the more common meaning of “to buckwheat [someone]” is an American idiom *to mean killing them in any method that causes as slow, very painful death*. The most usual context is a gunshot through the rectum.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Again you seem overly enamoured with shiny and new.


Again I see what Americans are buying and talking about first hand and it's very different from Canada (same thing for amazon 10 years ago)

Boomers are nostalgic for GM. The youth prefer something new for good reason. The market is overdue for innovation and disruption. The dealership market is for boomers. Tesla is putting sensors in seats and everywhere to make vehicles like smart phones to wall phones and far safer.

GM is putting moon graphics on a Hummer to attempt to appear hip and cool with the new culture.



MrMatt said:


> Well actually Sears was the Amazon of mail order, but they mismanaged their position.


That was exactly my point. You're saying GM is right there because they are Sears with basic a website nobody uses

*GM sold 26 EVs in Q4. 26. *Is that what you call shipping? They're worse than Sears and get more government support. 26!

The market of boomers will only decline. That is a simple fact not what I am "enamoured" with


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> *GM sold 26 EVs in Q4. 26. *Is that what you call shipping?


Well yes, since they actually shipped.
Also the reason it was short was because they ran out of battery packs. Maybe you heard, but there have been some supply chain issues lately.

The reality is that GM, who behind has shipped a production electric pickup truck, Tesla has not. 

I did say GM is playing catchup in some aspects, but on some things they are with or even leading Tesla.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Tesla has over a million Cybertruck pre-sales and I don't even know what a GM EV truck is. 26 sales is just a farce. How many Hummer EVs will sell outside NA?

Tesla has done a lot to secure and streamline supply chain issues for years. The list goes on and on. Same people had the same ignorance towards what was coming 10 years ago.

I've been saying for the last 10 years you see things changing in the US first. Canada is always a few years behind in what is happening


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Tesla has over a million Cybertruck pre-sales and I don't even know what a GM EV truck is. 26 sales is just a farce. How many Hummer EVs will sell outside NA?


Lots of pre-sales, but they're not shipping for a year.








Tesla Cybertruck with 1m+ reservations delayed to 2023 [Update]


Tesla Cybertruck deliveries have been postponed as Elon Musk, co-founder and CEO, Tesla, has confirmed.




topelectricsuv.com





Once it went past a few months production Ford shut down pre-sales.



> I've been saying for the last 10 years you see things changing in the US first. Canada is always a few years behind in what is happening


I really don't understand your America First attitude.
For one GM and Tesla are both US companies.

Canada is in many ways ahead of the US, we typically adapt to new technology faster. But you're ranting about 2 US companies then claiming Canada is behind. I don't get it.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Canada is in many ways ahead of the US, we typically adapt to new technology faster. But you're ranting about 2 US companies then claiming Canada is behind. I don't get it.


From a Canadian's perspective sure.. we point and focus a lot on the few things we do first.

Our culture mimics the US with a delay. The US doesn't really follow or shadow what we do at all. Some US companies will launch things in Canada first. I can tell you there's a lot going on in the US that Canadians are barely aware of yet. Maybe they heard about it on the internet but it's just a far away thing to them because nobody around them is using it yet

I keep seeing it happen over and over. People just don't want to believe change is coming. And then it comes lol


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> From a Canadian's perspective sure.. we point and focus a lot on the few things we do first.
> 
> Our culture mimics the US with a delay. The US doesn't really follow or shadow what we do at all. Some US companies will launch things in Canada first. I can tell you there's a lot going on in the US that Canadians are barely aware of yet. Maybe they heard about it on the internet but it's just a far away thing to them because nobody around them is using it yet
> 
> I keep seeing it happen over and over. People just don't want to believe change is coming. And then it comes lol


Of course my point is, and remains, the actions of Tesla vs GM really are really irrelevant to Canada vs the US.
Obviously a less regulated jurisdiction with a much larger population will be ahead quite a bit. But again that's irrelevant.

And really the idea that Tesla crammed more people into a factory makes them better really has nothing to do with the debate on if Cathie Wood is good at her job or not.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Cathie Wood was tracking Tesla and Bitcoin when most Canadians thought it was a vague concept. Most don't know what's coming in the medical industry now

My point is most Canadians live in the shadows and wait for America to show us what works. We have a few flashes of brilliance but we mostly build what worked in the USA. Just because Cathie Wood suddenly hit mainstream awareness and overhyped her funds doesn't mean she is bad because morons bought the top and now lost money lol. I knew about Cathie Wood long before she was famous at all

Her and many people made insane wealth in 2020-2021 and now people buy the top and say she's the dumb one. Ugh silly boomers. Trix are for kids


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Tesla has an estimated 3 million "pre-orders".......not "pre-sales" for their Cybertruck.

The difference is that pre-orders are a list of people who put down $100 to "reserve" a Cybertruck.

They haven't actually ordered one, and can simply cancel and get their $100 back.

The reserve list has been compiled since 2016 and production is still nowhere in sight.

Meanwhile, GM and Ford will be producing their world class pickup trucks as EVs soon, and will compete with the Cybertruck.

As a pickup truck using farmer might say......Tesla is all hat and no cattle.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Cathie Wood was tracking Tesla and Bitcoin when most Canadians thought it was a vague concept. Most don't know what's coming in the medical industry now
> 
> My point is most Canadians live in the shadows and wait for America to show us what works. We have a few flashes of brilliance but we mostly build what worked in the USA. Just because Cathie Wood suddenly hit mainstream awareness and overhyped her funds doesn't mean she is bad because morons bought the top and now lost money lol. I knew about Cathie Wood long before she was famous at all
> 
> Her and many people made insane wealth in 2020-2021 and now people buy the top and say she's the dumb one. Ugh silly boomers. Trix are for kids


Most people thought Tesla and Bitcoin were a vague concept, many still don't get crypto. It isn't like Canadians are uniquely unaware here. Heck most people don't even realize that GM was selling EVs years before Tesla even existed, but that's beside the point.

She crashed her funds before, and she's crashing them again.
She's just riding the wave.
Capable money managers do a few things.
1. Close their funds when they can't allocate the capital effectively.
2. Hold cash when there are no good buying opportunities.

She didn't do either, and honestly when she's agreeing with Trudeau and Biden that inflation isn't a problem.... when pretty much everyone else knows it is....


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> when pretty much everyone else knows it is....


Lots of people on this forum seem to believe it's transitory

I don't agree with everything Cathie Woods does or says. Her argument is that tech is getting cheaper to produce. Space is also getting cheaper. Many things are. I personally wouldn't buy a fund named after something from the bible who claims she is doing God's work but my philosophy is I can learn something from others who are succeeding in their own way.

I wouldn't discount her ideas unless you have more gains than her lol


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

Inflation isn't a problem so maybe she is right. There were articles earlier this week outlining how the 30 yr bond market is telling you mid and long term inflation isn't a problem. The US 30 yr bond yield has stayed relatively unchanged at ~ 2% through all the short tern transitory inflation surges.

Her argument is many items are in fact deflating. EV, most electronics cloud storage, etc in fact are all getting cheaper. Who knows if she is right but she at least makes compelling arguments.

People scoffed at her when she valued Tesla in 2018 going to $400 in 5 years when it was $45. Tesla is now $846. They scoff at her now thinking the Nasdaq will never rise again. She will make them all look foolish again IMO Look out for Bitcoin too. She is way ahead of everybody on defi and blockchain too w her peers Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If financial success is the barometer........M3s may want to reconsider investing with silly old boomer Warren Buffet.

_A thousand dollars invested with Warren Buffet since 1965 would be worth more than $27 million today, while the comparable amount for the S&P 500 is roughly $200,000._









Breaking Down the Buffett Formula: Berkshire Hathaway’s Returns by the Numbers


A thousand dollars invested with Warren Buffett since 1965 would be worth more than $27 million today. The comparable amount for the S&P 500 would be about $200,000. Here is how he’s managed to do it.




www.barrons.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I read that old boomer Buffet's Apple shares went up another $8 billion the other day.

A fair day's pay for a fair day's work ?

I also read an article that Buffet is the only mega billionaire whose wealth increased in 2021.

The lucky old boomer just keeps stumbling along.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Lots of people on this forum seem to believe it's transitory


Well depends how you define transitory.

I don't think it's going to stay at 7% forever, but I do think that the inflation we've experienced recently is very damaging, and the impact will last for a while. Also it seems that they aren't going to be able to get it under control any time soon, and I actually agree with that approach from a pragmatic perspective.



> I wouldn't discount her ideas unless you have more gains than her lol


Well since she's underperforming the indexes I think it's obvious she's doing a bad job.
Also since I'm outperforming the indexes, I guess that qualifies me to discount her ideas doesn't it?

To be fair my outperformance is only low single digits after fees, but that's far better than most


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Look how Boomer Biden blatantly ignores Tesla. Just wow
> 
> 
> 26 EV sold in Q4.. They would be f$cked without government bailout and blatant support


BS, GM is likely going to have about $2B in earnings for Q4, likely more. With their supply shortages.
No bailout needed.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

Biden is handing out $15,000 cheques if you buy a GM EV. Maybe not a bailout literally but a ridiculous govt subsidy.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Jimmy said:


> Biden is handing out $15,000 cheques if you buy a GM EV. Maybe not a bailout literally but a ridiculous govt subsidy.


Look at how Biden blatantly ignores TSLA in this tweet. They are crafting govt subsidy specifically for Union voters


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1486494532007079937
26 EV sales in Q4 is just embarrassing. Like extremely embarrassing. If they manage to overtake TSLA in 2025 like they say it's only thanks to government support

But even with all the government support 26 EV sales is not going to do it lol


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

m3s said:


> Look at how Biden blatantly ignores TSLA in this tweet. They are crafting govt subsidy specifically for Union voters
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1486494532007079937
> ...


Yes. Part of the subsidy requires it be made by union labor too which is a blatant direct subsidy to only Ford, Chrysler and GM. The D3 have always done lousy in the Consumer Reports reliability reviews. Can't see that changing w EVs.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

sags said:


> I read that old boomer Buffet's Apple shares went up another $8 billion the other day.
> 
> A fair day's pay for a fair day's work ?
> 
> ...


That article disagrees with this one, which is a list of billionaires whose wealth increased in 2021:


https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/2021-wealth-recap-billionaires-added-143456071.html



Ahead of him were Musk, Bernard Arnault, Larry Page, Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Steve Ballmer, and Larry Ellison.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Buffet bought AAPL in 2016. He says himself he doesn't really understand tech

We could look up 2010 posts here when I was posting about how my iPhone was going to kill Blackberry (I had both at the time) Some very smart investors on here bought AAPL like keith probably long before Buffet

It's a pointless comparison because everyone is in a different place at different times. In 2010 I was still setting up my first house financially so I didn't have enough funds to invest. Someone retired might have the funds but not the risk tolerance

I think things like blockchain and fintech come to a point where the momentum is picking up and the risk/reward becomes a better proposition. Cathie Wood talks a lot of these S curves and mass adoption and I can see it with blockchain, fintech, EVs now

Most people do not understand these things. I see the patterns repeat over and over. The same people say the same things. Fintech is happening in the US now. Eventually it will migrate over to Canada. Rinse and repeat

Then people will make excuses again about how Cathie Wood doesn't know what she's doing from her giant mansion lol


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Then people will make excuses again about how Cathie Wood doesn't know what she's doing from her giant mansion lol


Just to be clear, I made a distinction on Cathies 2 levels of competence.

She is an exceptionally good hype-maker, and a pretty mediocre investment manager.
She got rich from selling her funds, not from being particularly good at managing the investments.

Lots of people hop on the hype train a bit early and confuse their luck with skill.


Secondly a Creepy Joe Biden endorsement isn't that meaningful to me.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

m3s said:


> Buffet bought AAPL in 2016. He says himself he doesn't really understand tech
> 
> We could look up 2010 posts here when I was posting about how my iPhone was going to kill Blackberry (I had both at the time) Some very smart investors on here bought AAPL like keith probably long before Buffet
> 
> ...


I just read their 2022 Big Ideas report. Very eye opening material and they make compelling arguments for all the technologies that will be shaping the next decade. 

I think many here would do well to read it and then come back here and comment informedly for a change on Cathy Wood's investing strategies.

Here is the condensed version

ARK Invest's Big Ideas 2022: The 14 transformative technologies to watch this year | ZDNet


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Jimmy said:


> I just read their 2022 Big Ideas report.


Yea it's pretty obvious that most people don't read that much

I like to research both sides and get the counter arguments on here and other places. I also like how Cathie Wood points out that you want most people to disagree with you. When everyone agrees and knows something is a good investment it's probably time to look elsewhere

When the counter arguments are uninformed of your side it's a great sign


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

MrMatt said:


> Just to be clear, I made a distinction on Cathies 2 levels of competence.
> 
> She is an exceptionally good hype-maker, and a pretty mediocre investment manager.
> She got rich from selling her funds, not from being particularly good at managing the investments.


IMO She didn't have to sell anything. Her fund performance spoke for itself. Anyone screening for top returns on US tech funds easily found her funds. I did in 2018. Her funds got pushed up by record low interest rates and perhaps a little boost from ecommerce and online sales in the pandemic but anyone doing any kind of valuation analysis should have been cautious of anything after a 100% run up in a year. 

She tries to keep her holdings at their target rates so she is good at 'managing the investments' IMO too.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Warren Buffett has nearly caught up with Cathie Wood after the tech-stock guru vastly outperformed him in 2020


Berkshire Hathaway stock has climbed 31% since the start of 2020, not far behind the Ark Innovation ETF's 36% gain over the same period.




markets.businessinsider.com


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I bet Warren zooms out and ignores cherry picked clickbait. Warren's risk adjusted returns much better though.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

m3s said:


> Warren's risk adjusted returns much better though.


Actually, ARKW still has higher Sharpe ratio and Sortino ratio.

Anyways, I'm always wondering what does "risk-adjusted returns" truly mean. Most "risk-adjusted" metrics seems to go against high returns in favour of low volatility. I get it, but I believe that losing the opportunity for high returns is an opportunity risk rarely taken into account.

For instance, from 1979 to 2018, Short Term Treasury and US Stock Market had the same Sharpe Ratio. We could even say that Short Term Treasury had a much higher Sortino Ratio. Same for the Calmar Ratio. So I guess one should've bought Short Term Treasury 40 years ago... Hahahaha!

I think the best metric is Roy's Safety-First Criterion, as it uses investor's minimum required return. Or maybe the portfolio with the best risk-adjusted return is the one with the highest perpetual withdrawal rate at the 10th percentile.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I like volatility

I was scaling out last year and scaling back in as things drop. People complaining about volatility FOMO'd the top and panic sold the bottom. If people who weren't interested before suddenly bought the hype with low conviction and expected it to keep going to the moon by tomorrow.. they have nobody to blame but themselves

The people cheering the crash are just coping with all their missed opportunities


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> Anyways, I'm always wondering what does "risk-adjusted returns" truly mean. Most "risk-adjusted" metrics seems to go against high returns in favour of low volatility. I get it, but I believe that losing the opportunity for high returns is an opportunity risk rarely taken into account.


The reason the risk-adjusted return comparisons are useful is that one can arbitrarily pump up returns by using leverage, the same way real estate investors use. So we have this simple tool (leverage) that can dial up to your heart's content.

If for example QQQ provides a better risk-adjusted return than some other fund, it means that you can arbitrarily apply leverage to QQQ, ending up with a *higher* absolute return.

So the reason people care is because of the absolute return. Nobody intends to forfeit higher returns.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> Yea it's pretty obvious that most people don't read that much
> 
> I like to research both sides and get the counter arguments on here and other places. I also like how Cathie Wood points out that you want most people to disagree with you. When everyone agrees and knows something is a good investment it's probably time to look elsewhere


Most people think the earth is round, maybe it's a good idea to join the flat earthers.
90% of Canadians think vaccines are good, so maybe the antivaxxers are onto something.

Sometimes bad ideas have a poor following because they're bad.


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

sags said:


> I read that old boomer Buffet's Apple shares went up another $8 billion the other day.
> 
> A fair day's pay for a fair day's work ?
> 
> ...


Warren is not a boomer. He is older having been born in 1930.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Sometimes bad ideas have a poor following because they're bad.


There's always some idiots.

The majority of people are in the middle of the bell curve. There's a minority on the other side of the bell curve as well

If you confuse the two you're probably in between scared of both


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

MrBlackhill said:


> Anyways, I'm always wondering what does "risk-adjusted returns" truly mean. Most "risk-adjusted" metrics seems to go against high returns in favour of low volatility.


Risk-adjusted just means assessing return opportunities in conjunction with an assessment of the risk that comes with it. Not in isolation. Typically with a reward-to-risk ratio. Two investments with the same expected return - pick the one that is better for risk when combined with the portfolio. It can be in the context of an individual investment, but is more practical from a portfolio perspective that assesses a new investment's impact on the total portfolio return, vol and reward to risk ratios.


----------



## investor65 (Aug 3, 2021)

When this tech carnage ends this year, it's gonna be one great buying opportunity.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

investor65 said:


> When this tech carnage ends this year, it's gonna be one great buying opportunity.


I think it's a great buying opportunity now.

There is just a lot of chaos right now, but there has been for years.


----------



## Thal81 (Sep 5, 2017)

I think right now is a good buying opportunity too, both in the stock and bond markets.

The few people around me with whom I talk about the stock market all have the same reaction. They were all waiting for the dip, but now that we are in it, they don't want to buy because it's going to sink deeper. It's like that every time... Eventually we will have recovered and they will buy near the top.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Thal81 said:


> I think right now is a good buying opportunity too, both in the stocks and bonds markets.
> 
> The few people around me with whom I talk about the stock market all have the same reaction. They were all waiting for the dip, but now that we are in it, they don't want to buy because it's going to sink deeper. It's like that every time... Eventually we will have recovered and they will buy near the top.


Yup!

The markets don't like the uncertainty. People see all the bad things coming that won't be resolved anytime soon and expect it to get worse. But the uncertainty will start to resolve much faster and leave people coping with how they missed the opportunity

The news cycle will move on just like it moved on from Afghanistan and the Evergrande crisis. What really matters is what the central banksters do in March. Turbulent markets could force them to continue the cocaine monetary policy

The market tends to rally when the central banksters announce they won't be as harsh as they threatened


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)




----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

This is due to a war involving one of the world's largest oil producers and major disruption to energy markets. This is going to accelerate demand destruction for oil and gas.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Demand destruction is required, because there is not enough supply.

But as far as Cathy Woods go, her prediction was based on, at the time, 97 million boe/d consumption which she clearly stated was the peak and would not exceed 2019 levels. Demand was accelerating as she was writing the tweet, and 2019/pre-covid levels of consumption have already been surpassed for months.

There is both a supply and a demand problem for petroleum products across all categories.


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

Quite fascinating. Needed to research the whale oil analogy. Ironically the commercialization and growth of petroleum (oil) led to the destruction of whale oil demand and likely saved whales from extinction.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

I doubt we have surpassed 2019 consumption considering air travel is still only 65% of 2019 levels. Air Travel Forecast: When Will Airlines Recover from Covid-19? | Bain & Company 

She jumped the gun a little. She is still probably right as oil will crash as people move to Ev.

"Given the wide dispersion between Wood's oil target and today's reality, the innovation investor admitted defeat in a tweet on Monday, but recommitted to the idea that oil prices will eventually crash to the teens, representing a 90% decline from current levels.

"I got the supply shock wrong. That said, the accelerated shift toward electric transportation will destroy oil consumption at the margin. Long term, though longer than I expected, oil prices will collapse under the weight of lower demand," Wood said. "


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

And Warren Buffet chuckled....


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The numbers show just how much Cathie Wood sucks at her job. These are annualized returns as of March 14.

ARKK: 1 year... -58.4% ; 3 years... +5.6% ; 5 years... +19.7%
QQQ: 1 year... +1.4% ; 3 years... +22.5% ; 5 years... +20.3%

So Cathie can't even beat a low fee tech index (QQQ), though she _almost_ matched the index over 5 years.

The below chart is the performance of ARKK divided by QQQ, so relative performance since she created the fund. When the ratio is above 0% Cathie is outperforming, when it's below she's underperforming. Notice that the whole ARKK drama comes down to a brief period of mega outperformance in 2020 & 2021.

With that ratio going below 0% you're now seeing ARKK, overall, underperforming QQQ.









This is a pretty good picture of stock-picking failing to succeed over the long term. Brief periods of "success" and then a reversion to the mean.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

Nice cherry picked time frame in a risk off period w a war going on. Even on your bs graph she still beat the index for most of the 7 years.

Wait for the cycle to go risk on again and it will be like 2021 and you can repost your bs chart again then hopefully. Her fund is still up 20%/yr . How much are your bonds down this year?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

james4beach said:


> With that ratio going below 0% you're now seeing ARKK, overall, underperforming QQQ.


Playing devil's advocate, this graph also show that someone who invested in ARKK since inception had only about 18 months underperforming QQQ (mainly in 2016) out of 7 years.

And that person also had an opportunity to ride the momentum, and retire near peak by moving back the gains from 2020-2021 to safer assets.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> And that person also had an opportunity to ride the momentum, and retire near peak by moving back the gains from 2020-2021 to safer assets.


Very unlikely that the average investor did that. Usually, money flows into these things when they are hottest as people always chase performance.

To do well, an investor would have had to join Cathie's wild ride back in 2015-2017, and back then, nobody was talking about her and very few invested with her. The fund was tiny.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The numbers show just how much Cathie Wood sucks at her job. These are annualized returns as of March 14.
> 
> ARKK: 1 year... -58.4% ; 3 years... +5.6% ; 5 years... +19.7%
> QQQ: 1 year... +1.4% ; 3 years... +22.5% ; 5 years... +20.3%
> ...


When the ratio is *below 100%* she's underperforming. It just shows how bad she is at her job.

I'd like to see one with BRK


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> When the ratio is *below 100%* she's underperforming.


No, the graph @james4beach made is a ratio to which a performance graph is applied, so it starts even at 0% and then it moves either above or below that 0% line if it outperforms or underperforms.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> No, the graph @james4beach made is a ratio to which a performance graph is applied, so it starts even at 0% and then it moves either above or below that 0% line if it outperforms or underperforms.


That's what he said, but it also contradicts what he said the graph is of.

"The below chart is the performance of ARKK divided by QQQ, so relative performance since she created the fund. "


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> That's what he said, but it also contradicts what he said the graph is of.
> 
> "The below chart is the performance of ARKK divided by QQQ, so relative performance since she created the fund. "


This is SPY:SPY. So when the performance is the same, the graph of outperformance/underperformance stays at 0%.









Now this in red is SPY:BIL, so the graph of the relative outperformance of SPY over BIL (T-Bills). In black, the performance graph of SPY alone.

As you see, graphs start at 0% and goes over 0% to tell how much outperformance or under 0% to tell how much underperformance.










This is the inverse, BIL:SPY









See, after 5 years, SPY doubled (+100%), therefore the relative performance of BIL vs SPY is halved (-50%)


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> I'd like to see one with BRK


This is BRK.A and SPY performance on the same graph, and the relative performance on the graph below, over the past 10 years.










15 years









20 years









25 years









29 years









5 years


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> This is SPY:SPY. So when the performance is the same, the graph of outperformance/underperformance stays at 0%.
> View attachment 22946
> 
> 
> ...


Gotcha, so his description of what the graph is was wrong. 
It isn't the performance of ARK divided by QQQ.
This is why I think linking to the actual sources is useful, because sometimes the claim or description posted in the forum is wrong.

Where are you making these graphs?


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Where are you making these graphs?


That looks like stockcharts.com to me.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Spudd said:


> That looks like stockcharts.com to me.


Yup, and you select the option "performance" for the main graph or "price - performance" for the other graphs.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrBlackhill said:


> Yup, and you select the option "performance" for the main graph or "price - performance" for the other graphs.


One can also link to them. Here are two alternative views of the same thing, relative performance of ARKK.

Here's the chart of ARKK:QQQ with the two prices divided
Here is ARKK (green) and QQQ (black) performance side by side

Both views have their advantages, for certain things.

Stockcharts always does total returns adjusted for dividends, which is a nice feature. You don't get that with many other chart sites.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> One can also link to them. Here are two alternative views of the same thing, relative performance of ARKK.
> 
> Here's the chart of ARKK:QQQ with the two prices divided
> Here is ARKK (green) and QQQ (black) performance side by side
> ...


I don't think that the performance is "divided", it's some sort other comparison.

It looks like ARKK was simply a leveraged QQQ, until late 2020, where it starts to diverge, and really breaks off in May 2021.
Overall looks like a higher volitility/riskier mix but not really superior. TTM is pretty poor performance.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I don't think that the performance is "divided", it's some sort other comparison.
> 
> It looks like ARKK was simply a leveraged QQQ, until late 2020, where it starts to diverge, and really breaks off in May 2021.
> Overall looks like a higher volitility/riskier mix but not really superior. TTM is pretty poor performance.


Yeah ARKK seems to find the most volatile tech stocks, so you get a high beta version of QQQ perhaps.

Risk-adjusted return figures such as Sharpe ratios (which is what I originally I posted in this thread) seem to suggest the same kind of thing. So let's say there's another rally in tech, which is bound to happen at some point. ARKK will rally as well -- and you'd expect that, with the high beta.

I do think ARKK vs QLD is a decent comparison, since QLD is leveraged NASDAQ. Amazingly, QLD seems to do better than ARKK, *even in risk-adjusted terms*.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I do think ARKK vs QLD is a decent comparison, since QLD is leveraged NASDAQ. Amazingly, QLD seems to do better than ARKK, *even in risk-adjusted terms*.


Not that amazingly IMO, Cathie is a an excellent marketer, not a particularly good investment manager.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1522396495634628608
New 2 year low for ARKK. ARKK is like holding the most highly leveraged and high cost oil company in the midst of an oil price crash.

ARKK is a hyper leveraged bet on technology. It actually has worse performance than TQQQ - triple leveraged NASDAQ - over 6 mo, 1 year, 2 year, 3 year, and 5 year periods.

Don't worry though, now she just needs 1250% returns over the next 5 years to hit her targets.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

All of her ARKK funds except one, are in the red.

I don't understand the money flows into her funds. Some people have more money than brains.......or they believe in "story time" stocks.

That line rider is better than words. I laughed when the rider went flying off...........LOL.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> All of her ARKK funds except one, are in the red.
> 
> I don't understand the money flows into her funds. Some people have more money than brains.......or they believe in "story time" stocks.
> 
> That line rider is better than words. I laughed when the rider went flying off...........LOL.


Like I said at the beginning, she's a marketer not investor. And she's damn good at her REAL job.

She's driven a bunch of funds into the ground.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

There was more bad news and the largest overall market decline since 2020 where everything fell this week . Why you people hate and obsess so much about ARKK individually is kind of amusing .

Her fund is still up 148% since its inception, 13% cagr still better than XIU or SPY indexes so maybe she still gets the last laugh.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

james4beach said:


> The numbers show that Cathie Wood sucks at her job and is a failure.


It would be extremely difficult to believe you have a CAGR over 26% for the same period. She does not suck at her job. Instead, she outperforms almost everyone.

The guy who came in second place in the Formula 1 championship is not a talentless hack who could not drive out of a parking space.

What is really going on here is: "I have an irrational dislike of Cathy Wood and I'm going to misrepresent the truth so badly that I will go as far to term her amazing return as a failure."

Having said that, I dumped ARKK a couple of days after I learned she was trading Tesla's earning calls. I only held it for a short time but it is a documented fact she is a smart lady, has assembled one of the best teams in the business, and has performed exceptionally well. For a while, she was leading all actively traded funds with her performance and beating the S&P 500. I would be proud of that record.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Tesla outperformed her bullish prediction of several years ago, back when people were laughing at her. She isn't a short term investor. Go ahead and snicker at short term returns.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> It would be extremely difficult to believe you have a CAGR over 26% for the same period.


What period, and no I personally don't have a 26% CAGR over a reasonable period of time, because I have a more conservative portfolio.
That being said, I'm up nearly double from my recent lows from March 2020, which honestly wasn't skill, the market is just like that.



> She does not suck at her job. Instead, she outperforms almost everyone.


Yes, she's a great marketer and self promoter.

But from what I've seen, she's just invested in the most volitile tech stocks, and as such her returns look like the tech index scaled (both up and down).
I'm also not particularly impressed with her arguments against the tech billionaires.

It's great PR, but the ideas and though process are suspect.



> What is really going on here is: "I have an irrational dislike of Cathy Wood and I'm going to misrepresent the truth so badly that I will go as far to term her amazing return as a failure."


Actually my issue is that some people have pointed to her as some expert we should listen to, and I simply disagree because 
1. The statements she made in those contexts didn't make sense.
2. She has to show better long term performance. To be honest doubling the NAV in the last 5 years isn't bad but she didn't even outperform the index over the same period.
If you fail to outperform the index, AND have higher volatility it's hard to argue you're a "great investor"

Personally my portfolio is less volatile than the index (that is one of my objectives)
So combined with my slight outperformance of the index I think I'm a pretty good investor. Cathie Woods didn't accomplish either.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> It would be extremely difficult to believe you have a CAGR over 26% for the same period


Dude, even QQQ outperformed Cathie since inception. If I wanted US tech exposure I'd just invest in QQQ, and that would have beaten ARKK.

She's a terrible fund manager. She has not beaten QQQ either in returns or risk-adjusted returns.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Dude, even QQQ outperformed Cathie since inception. If I wanted US tech exposure I'd just invest in QQQ, and that would have beaten ARKK.


You mis-typed. QQQ has not outperformed ARKK since inception.




james4beach said:


> She's a terrible fund manager. She has not beaten QQQ either in returns or risk-adjusted returns.


Kathy Wood has a forward looking fund that is focused on innovation and the future. She is invested in crypto, robotics, alternative financing, medical advances, etc. She is running an ETF like a venture capital operation. It's going to be a wild ride.

Again, I was really impressed ARKK and held it briefly but dumped it when I found out she was trading Tesla's earning reports. That is gambling and I wish she would stop but, on balance, she brings a whole lot to the table. She is a person worthy of respect.

Even just the time she put into going on Squawkbox and being shouted down by literally every panellist when she said anything remotely positive about Tesla and then, after being cut off and denigrated for 30 minutes, being rebutted by Bob Lutz makes me respect her as a person. Go watch CNBC clips on YouTube. It's an embarrassment to news media but she stayed positive and did her best to insert her message.

When someone is prosecuting a smear campaign of lies, it is very difficult to stay to message, keep it factual, and not get personal. She is better at it than I am, as evidenced by my work in this very thread.


----------



## scorpion_ca (Nov 3, 2014)




----------



## investor65 (Aug 3, 2021)

I was on the Cathie Wood train for a while. It was fun. She was making some of the gutsiest calls anywhere and nailing them. She was, I believe, the first big money manager in on Bitcoin. She could do no wrong. She was moving markets.
Unfortunately, it seems her luck has run out.
However, she is a brilliant, classy person and I wish her great success. There is no benefit in kicking people when they're down. 
We reap what we sow.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

I believe the best skill a retail investor can have is objectivity. There are so many opportunities for myopia that it is literally impossible to be fully objective.

The point is, Cathy's tremendous success does not hurt any of us. Instead of attempting to misrepresent her success as a failure, an objective person will study her as a wildly interesting investor and try to determine the method to her madness.

Putting her down does nothing to help us and it poisons the conversation pool because people don't respond well to myopic rantings. Learning from her does help us because having more money _will_ make most of us more comfortable, let us retire earlier, etc.

Sometimes I study someone like Bill Ackman, a great investor, and find myself unable to determine the method to his madness. Sure, I have a decent idea of what he is doing and I get a kick out of his position that any monkey can be successful in business by following the basic tenants of business operations but I haven't internalized his philosophy like I have Warren Buffett. Still, I've learned some lessons regarding what not to do, as well as a little bit of how to do it, and am a better investor for having studied him.

I love listening to John Templeton and I have profound admiration for his wisdom and American deep south elegance. He sounds folksy and naive but his impeccable manners belay a next level genius who understood macro economics at least as well as any of the top investors in history.

Listen to John Templeton dismantle the crash of 1987, immediately after the crash, on Wall Street Week. I was an investor, back in the day, and watched WSW but missed this episode. I was the poorer for it but I have since regained that loss by watching this clip.


Check out this clip starting at 1:25. Keep in mind, this was when everyone was shell shocked by the crash a couple of days earlier.







There is a very real chance that, one day, Cathie Wood will be spoken of with the same level of reverence as Buffett, Templeton, Lynch, etc.

I try to learn what I can from these investing superstars. Where I don't know them or don't share their point of view, I say nothing because that is how a good person ought to conduct themselves.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

If you want to succeed at investing, you have to believe in people. Companies are just a bunch of people.

I left ARKK with a small profit and a bitter after taste after learning of their ER trading on Tesla but I still follow ARKK and admire Ms. Wood. If it becomes apparent that she has stopped the trading behaviour, I will buy back in a heartbeat. People can learn and change. This is why I'm a better investor today than I was 40 years ago. Cathie can learn and change too, undoubtedly more than I can since she is way, way smarter than I am. I would not bet against her.


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

Momentum is your friend … until the end.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> You mis-typed. QQQ has not outperformed ARKK since inception.


You want charts or something? Sure I'm happy to further embarrass her and show what a crappy portfolio manager she is.

Inception date of ARKK was 2014-10-31 so let's see how Cathie has done versus a super low fee tech-heavy index.

Red line is ARKK, black line is QQQ. The cumulative total result is shown in the legend in the top left
ARKK , 145.38% (loser)
*QQQ , 225.09% (outperformer)*

For additional verification, here's Portfolio Visualizer's comparison of ARKK and QQQ. This shows annualized rates
ARKK , 13.74% CAGR (loser)
*QQQ , 17.28% CAGR (outperformer)*

Cathie's ARKK has underperformed QQQ since inception. Investors in her fund would have been better off if they bought the index.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> The point is, Cathy's tremendous success does not hurt any of us. Instead of attempting to misrepresent her success as a failure, an objective person will study her as a wildly interesting investor and try to determine the method to her madness.


Or instead of attempting to misrepresent her failure as success, we should look at the actual returns. They compare poorly to the respective index.



> Putting her down does nothing to help us and it poisons the conversation pool because people don't respond well to myopic rantings. Learning from her does help us because having more money _will_ make most of us more comfortable, let us retire earlier, etc.


The issue is people use her as an expert/authority to prove their point, or their ideas.
But for that to be valid both parties must accept that she is an expert/authority.

I do not think she's particularly exceptional as an investor, therefore I don't accept her as an expert or authority on investing.

I particularly don't accept her as an expert as she's said stupid things, and disagreed with those I do consider experts, and my understanding.
Sorry but I think that the tech billionaires that have run MULTIPLE multibillion dollar startups have a better sense than she does.

Also it's important to note that those tech billionaires have managed to attract far more capital than she has.

I like your examples of competent authorities, and they're good.

But some idiot who says stupid things, argues with people much smarter than them and doesn't even have very good investment returns, yeah, I'm not really going to respect their opinion.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1519572147152519168


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

scorpion_ca said:


>


I saw videos of this young bald fellow being touted of several forums. Is there any where to see his portfolios perfomance vs S&P 500 and Nasdaq? He must’ve made a kill.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Is there any where to see his portfolios perfomance vs S&P 500 and Nasdaq?


His portfolios are most likely index funds and value-tilted, and value lagged the market during the previous decade, but it's likely the time to shine for value now.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

If you look at her actual returns she beat QQQ ( her fund is an active fund so comparing it to an index is a bs comparison to begin w) for 7 yrs except the recent cherry picked 4 months.

Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey are 2 of the most successful 'tech billionaires' and they agree w her on many areas: EV, Bitcoin etc. She has a team of analysts who do white papers on areas they invest in. She and her team are probably the leading authority on some areas. I can't find any other analysts that have done as much research in these areas if any at all. In fact her funds are the only I can find in tech that are truly actively managed and not based on shitty index screening. There are many other tech experts like Beth Kindig but they don't manage funds.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Jimmy said:


> If you look at her actual returns she beat QQQ ( her fund is an active fund so comparing it to a levered index is a bs comparison to begin w) for 7 yrs except the recent cherry picked 4 months.
> 
> Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey are 2 of the most successful 'tech billionaires' and they agree w her on many areas: EV, Bitcoin etc. She has a team of analysts who do white papers on areas they invest in. She and her team are probably the leading authority on some areas. I can't find any other analysts that have done as much research in these areas if any at all. In fact her funds are the only I can find in tech that are truly actively managed and not based on shitty index screening. There are many other tech experts like Beth Kindig but they don't manage funds.


QQQ is not a levered index, it's just a plain Nasdaq 100 index.

If you look at James's graph, she started her fund in Oct 2014 but she didn't start beating the QQQ until mid-2017. Then she did beat it from mid-2017 until early 2022, and now she is again not beating it. But his point was that since inception, she has not beaten it. That means if in Oct 2014 you put equal amounts into QQQ and ARKK, your QQQ would be worth more today than your ARKK. 

I agree with you that saying she "sucks at her job" is a bit strong. But this shows the fallacy of active management. Active management can either outperform the index or underperform it. Often, it will outperform for a while and then underperform for a while. Investing in an active managed fund is no guarantee of outperforming the index.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If you remove Tesla from the ARKK fund......there isn't a whole lot of value left, and now Tesla is getting whacked.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

Spudd said:


> QQQ is not a levered index, it's just a plain Nasdaq 100 index.
> 
> If you look at James's graph, she started her fund in Oct 2014 but she didn't start beating the QQQ until mid-2017. Then she did beat it from mid-2017 until early 2022, and now she is again not beating it. But his point was that since inception, she has not beaten it. That means if in Oct 2014 you put equal amounts into QQQ and ARKK, your QQQ would be worth more today than your ARKK.
> 
> I agree with you that saying she "sucks at her job" is a bit strong. But this shows the fallacy of active management. Active management can either outperform the index or underperform it. Often, it will outperform for a while and then underperform for a while. Investing in an active managed fund is no guarantee of outperforming the index.


ok Someone bandied about the term 'leveraged qqq' and in the past they compared this active fund to a 3x levered QQQ etf.

It is hard to read his graph but it looks like only late 2015 to July 2017 or maybe 1.5 yrs. So in 7 yrs she beat QQQ for all but ~ 2 years. In average cagr ( 3 yr rolling say) though it would have beat qqq for longer periods. So here clearly active management proves to be better even in this cherry picked situation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Cathie Wood sold Tesla shares and bought GM shares. GM shares went down. Go away Cathie........you are bad luck.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Cathie Wood sold Tesla shares and bought GM shares. GM shares went down. Go away Cathie........you are bad luck.


We've known she's a bad stock picker for a very long time. Cathie used to manage a hedge fund during the dot com bubble, something she founded in 1998 or 1999 as far as I know.

Her hedge fund failed and everyone pulled out their money. The ARK thing is her second attempt at it but it appears to be playing out like her first try.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yea, Woods describes herself as gathering "disruptor" stocks, but there isn't much in her portfolio that I haven't seen before in the last 40 years.

They are just new names for old ideas. Home delivery.....gaming platform....online website....call a doctor....seriously ?

A true "disruptor" stock was Google. It blew apart the entire "walled garden" concept of search engines who controlled the results they presented.

I don't see anything remembling a Google in her portfolio, except maybe Tesla which was a great buy for her, but then she sold a pile of it.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> We've known she's a bad stock picker for a very long time. *Cathie used to manage a hedge fund during the dot com bubble, something she founded in 1998 or 1999 as far as I know.*
> 
> Her hedge fund failed and everyone pulled out their money. The ARK thing is her second attempt at it but it appears to be playing out like her first try.


 ... the rinse, scam, and repeat technique? That's a new one.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Yall need to zoom out and stop cherry picking recent data

Cathie Wood won't be living on OAS, collecting rain checks or eating cat food anytime soon. If someone bought her fund at the peak it's not her fault

Underlying issue is the Fed trying to play God with the markets


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Of course, Ms. Wood won't be living off OAS, collecting rain checks or eating cat food nor have to line up at the foodbanks. Only those who bought into her fund(s) will. 

And if the Feds is trying to play God with the markets, who make up the markets? The Feds?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

ARKK fund price has retraced back to March 2018. Most investors have lost money in the ARKK fund.

I am surprised they haven't bailed yet. Who invests in losing stocks like this ?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> ARKK fund price has retraced back to March 2018. Most investors have lost money in the ARKK fund.
> 
> I am surprised they haven't bailed yet. Who invests in losing stocks like this ?


If most people buy the hype it pushes prices to higher high and then the same people sell the low and push it lower

If you bought early and sold high now you can buy low again and profit from the dummies. I've been nibbling back in on overcorrections and getting instant gains lately and selling again

Your statement here show that you don't understand how market prices are based on time rather than "losing" and "winning" stocks


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Ponzi-matic?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> ... the rinse, scam, and repeat technique? That's a new one.


Well it's not exactly a scam. She just misrepresents herself as being skilled at good portfolio management even though her history shows that she isn't, going back a very long time.


----------



## investor65 (Aug 3, 2021)

Actually, I was wrong to defend Cathie Wood.
I think it was through force of habit because I've done it for so long.
I have always admired how she handled personal attacks with class, while making amazing call after call.
Because of her personality, she was well liked and trusted by many novice investors. They believed her when she said her funds "would return 15% a year for the next 5 years."
The fact is, she has destroyed many people's finances with her outlandish predictions.
She and others like her need to be held accountable.
I believe the government needs to play a much bigger role in protecting inexperienced investors. I don't think it will happen though. It's buyer beware when it comes to the investing jungle.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

investor65 said:


> I believe the government needs to play a much bigger role in protecting inexperienced investors. I don't think it will happen though. It's buyer beware when it comes to the investing jungle.


How about the government focus on protecting the value of fiat currency

People are being forced out into a risk curve because bank accounts pay less than 1% when inflation is 6%

Bonds are GICs are fine for boomers with RE wealth but not for the younger generations


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

investor65 said:


> I believe the government needs to play a much bigger role in protecting inexperienced investors.


Why so? Think about it, the government owns casinos and yet you're asking the government to protect inexperienced investors? Should the government also protect people from consumerism?

People can spend all their savings in casinos owned by the government. People can spend all their paychecks to buy luxury cars, branded clothings, jewels, etc.

People can make their own investments choices as they wish. Most use the services of a financial planner. Good for them, wise decision. Others DIY by index-investing in low fees funds. Wonderful for them, wise decision. As much as people can be stupid enough to gamble their money in the market. Too bad for them.

At some point, you can't overly protect people from bad decisions. The government should give a good education. That, we can debate about the quality of education and accessibility. But other than providing a good education, people are free to do stupid things with their money.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

investor65 said:


> The fact is, she has destroyed many people's finances with her outlandish predictions.
> She and others like her need to be held accountable.


No.

People need to be held accountable for their own actions. Nobody told them to invest in the fund. Did they do research?

I never once bought any of her funds because they always were and always have been pure speculative high risk trash.

But I did my research. I drew my own conclusions.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

If people buy the top of a hot overhyped market when it is well above the long term trend I don't see how it's Cathie's fault

I pick through her holdings for ideas but none of the funds made any sense to me as a whole (like most ETFs). The whole Ark of the Covenant investing for God threw me off as well

We're at the bottom of the logarithmic channel for tech (below the mean) As usual everyone gets it all backwards


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

investor65 said:


> I believe the government needs to play a much bigger role in protecting inexperienced investors. I don't think it will happen though. It's buyer beware when it comes to the investing jungle.


What measures do you propose?
I don't like the elitist idea of "accredited investors". 
I don't think making $200k/yr automatically makes you more financially literate.

I do think the KYC and other things at the retail level are a good idea.

I think financial literacy is important, they are teaching this in grade school.
I think they're doing better with disclosures etc.

I'm not really sure what reasonable methods they can take, do you have any ideas?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> If people buy the top of a hot overhyped market when it is well above the long term trend I don't see how it's Cathie's fault
> 
> I pick through her holdings for ideas but none of the funds made any sense to me as a whole (like most ETFs). The whole Ark of the Covenant investing for God threw me off as well
> 
> We're at the bottom of the logarithmic channel for tech (below the mean) As usual everyone gets it all backwards


If people give money to someone with a poor investment record, it's not her fault either.

The investor losses are the investors loss, they should have hired a competent manager.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I don't like the elitist idea of "accredited investors".
> I don't think making $200k/yr automatically makes you more financially literate.


Actually I think that on Wall Street, the accredited investors are known to be suckers who are easy prey. The Wall Street game is to court wealthy people as "accredited investors", which removes some of the securities protections enjoyed by regular investors. There is a perception of elite access to special investment opportunities.

The accredited investors / wealthy suckers are heavily sold on things like venture capital, IPOs, SPACs, and hedge funds. Giving them special access to IPOs is one of the old scams on Wall Street... and boy do high net worth suckers eat it up. Same story with hedge funds, which are almost always terrible investments. High net worth people are willing to buy these things and pay insanely high fees, even though very few hedge funds ever perform well over a long time period.

I really admire Buffett for how he called out the hedge fund industry in that million $ bet he made a few years ago. That was extremely embarrassing to the hedge fund industry.

This is also where the Federal Reserve has the right idea about the need to deflate various overheated areas. As SPACs and various other things deflate, the very wealthy people who were highly exposed to these things will experience a negative wealth effect. They will reduce their consumption and start becoming more careful with their money, which is good.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I think the wealth effect willl also impact those that buy on credit. Maybe others?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Cathie Wood to close ARK Transparency ETF which launched in December 2021 and lost over -30% since then.

I don't know what's sad. Cathie Wood's performance or the fact that this fund was aimed to invested in the most transparent companies... and _that_ fund gets closed? I guess transparency is not good for marketing.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Quick update... Cathie still sucks, still can't beat QQQ either in absolute terms, or in risk-adjusted terms.

I guess when you're a washed up dot-com era charlatan, you can only go so far. Charlatans can go pretty far in an exuberant bull market though.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Cathie Woods is pretty dumb......but not as dumb as people who give her their money.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

Why don't you control your CW OCD and wait until the market changes in some significant way? It has only been a month since your last hateful posts and nothing has changed in the bear market. 

Tesla grew earnings YOY in their latest release earlier this week actually so looks like the turnaround is started if some balanced news is to be reported. That little inconvenient fact seemed to be omitted and will no doubt be upsetting to some.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

BMO partners with Cathie Wood of ARK Investments to launch new technology funds


Along with the BMO ARK Innovation Fund, ARK Invest will also actively manage the BMO ARK Genomic Revolution Fund and the BMO ARK Next Generation Internet Fund




www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Jimmy said:


> Why don't you control your CW OCD and wait until the market changes in some significant way? It has only been a month since your last hateful posts and nothing has changed in the bear market.
> 
> Tesla grew earnings YOY in their latest release earlier this week actually so looks like the turnaround is started if some balanced news is to be reported. That little inconvenient fact seemed to be omitted and will no doubt be upsetting to some.


People are coping

They missed out on the fastest gains of our lifetime. Given a second chance they'd still miss it

Imagine if Wayne Gretzky just yelled at players but never played


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

That post didn't age well.

Since last July Tesla fell from $271 to $183 and ARKK fell from $49 to $37.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> That post didn't age well.
> 
> Since last July Tesla fell from $271 to $183 and ARKK fell from $49 to $37.


Says a fat Gretzky from the grandstands

If only someone told him he'd miss 100% of the shots he didn't take

Stay in school kids


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> BMO partners with Cathie Wood of ARK Investments to launch new technology funds
> 
> 
> Along with the BMO ARK Innovation Fund, ARK Invest will also actively manage the BMO ARK Genomic Revolution Fund and the BMO ARK Next Generation Internet Fund
> ...


 ... this only means BMO customers are gonna to have another (aka deeper) look at their existing BMO holdings, particularly those of technological or bio-technological ETFs or mutual funds. 

BMO may consider partnering with Cathie Wood in her AARK stuffs as "innovations" (which is laughable on BMO's own research team's capability) but anything synonymous with such name(s) are considered as "toxic" in my books.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Cathie Wood says a lot of things but she can’t say her record speaks for itself because it would scare everyone away.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

m3s said:


> Says a fat Gretzky from the grandstands
> 
> If only someone told him he'd miss 100% of the shots he didn't take
> 
> Stay in school kids


Thanks Coach…


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Wayne Gretzky quit high school at 17 and didn’t graduate. He was awarded an honorary doctorate similar to the one I awarded myself from CNBC.

You can call me sags, or Mr. Sags, or Boomer Sags, saggy sags, or any other name,…but you doesn’t has to call me doctor.

And FYI #99 compiled far more assists than goals during his career. He didn’t shoot the puck far more than he did.

And now you know the rest of the story.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> BMO partners with Cathie Wood of ARK Investments to launch new technology funds
> 
> 
> Along with the BMO ARK Innovation Fund, ARK Invest will also actively manage the BMO ARK Genomic Revolution Fund and the BMO ARK Next Generation Internet Fund
> ...


Like I said, she's an excellent marketter.

To be fair she also avoided FTX, like Musk and many others.
The fact that an "exchange" could collapse so spectacularly, and have such an impact is clear evidence it wasn't an exchange.
Or at least a proper exchange wasn't their primary business.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Like I said, she's an excellent marketter.
> 
> ....


 ... online dictionary of "marketer":



> _Marketer:_
> 
> _a person or company that advertises or promotes something_


End result [or mine (layman's)} definition of a "marketer" = a customer

Now add MrMatt's adjective of "excellent" to "marketer" = a sucker for a customer.


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

Seems strange to me that BMO would think they need this to generate fees, or maintain market share in this market. I wonder if was a licensing deal hatched some time ago that is cheaper to carry on and launch as opposed to cancel.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

I'm conflicted, with regard to Cathie Wood. I have tremendous admiration for her research driven investment platform, even though some of her ideas seem pretty far out there to me.

I would own ARKK, were it not for her need to trade. They have sold off Tesla before earning reports as a policy for quite a few quarters. From what I can tell, this always lost them money. This sort of short term witchcraft doesn't work so it breaks my hear to see her engage in it. This is what kept me from buying ARKK in 2016.

As for pointing to the ARKK trajectory and ripping her a new forumostemy, that is a great demonstration of the worst aspect of forums and public think. Forums are a tool in which people declare themselves superior to other people.

James, if you want to show your superiority, post every trade you make for severa years, like Cathie does, and let the actual performance do the talking. You might turn out to be better than her. Either way, someone is surely to post that you are as dumb as a box of rocks while they explain how much smarter they are than you.

ARKK is a growth oriented fund. It's not going to do great at a time like now when the world is entering recession. The story of ARKK is still being written and it could win or it could lose. I make no prediction but I do know they have some extremely good research team that has an unparalleled handle on the future of business and society.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You gotta be kidding.

My money is on James.

James should run a fund like BRK


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

sags said:


> James should run a fund like BRK


Not kidding and I agree that James should run a fund, even a virtual one.

I suspect this would show us how difficult it is to operate a fund and, even more, how difficult it is to be superior to other investors. Its easy to declare yourself smarter/better/etc but difficult to prove in base reality.

BTW, I'm not just talking about James. I'm sure James does ok but I suspect it would be wildly interesting if everyone had their returns posted under their screen name.

What I would guess is the talkers would be unimpressive while the meek people who roll in and state their discomfort at dealing with investments after the passing of a spouse tend to do just fine. I wouldn't want to guess who would have the best returns but I doubt it would be the people saying they are superior.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> Not kidding and I agree that James should run a fund, even a virtual one.
> 
> I suspect this would show us how difficult it is to operate a fund and, even more, how difficult it is to be superior to other investors. Its easy to declare yourself smarter/better/etc but difficult to prove in base reality.
> 
> ...


The point is that to claim to be a great investor, the minimum requirement is to outperform a comparable market index.
If you can't beat the market, you're adding no value, and you're not a great investor.

But remember Cathie Woods real job isn't investing, it's marketting.
She's managed to position herself a strong woman tech investor, and that brand has made her quite a fortune. Much more than her actual investing prowess justifies.


----------

