[MrMatt]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

 

[investor65]

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]

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]

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]

Momentum is your friend … until the end.

 

[james4beach]

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]

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]

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