[m3s]

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]

 

[andrewf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

And Warren Buffet chuckled....

 

[james4beach]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
View attachment 22940

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

Where are you making these graphs?

That looks like stockcharts.com to me.

 

[MrBlackhill]

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]

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.