ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S.

Full Version: ARK Innovation Has Likely Been a Disappointment for Most Investors
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
1. The model you downloaded was updated in March 21. Surely if a mistake was made, the analyst would have changed the model isn't it? It takes a fool to make an error of that magnitude, and a greater fool to not acknowledge and change it after the incident. But I do not know that Keubiko's a perma TSLA bear, and I agree that the bias definitely negates the credibility of the statements.

2. More accurately, what I said was that "She positions herself as a LT investor making bets on disruptive tech trends that take years/decades to play out." Go through her interviews and correct me if I'm in any way wrong with my description. Maybe I'm too stupid/stubborn, but I find it unreasonable for someone to invest LT in a structural disruptive trend, yet trades in and out frequently. Surely such structural trends don't change overnight?

3. My point was about her not doing what she says she's doing. The promoter statement was merely to illustrate my point in an exaggerated way (evident from the tone of my language). She can be a promoter, a mom trader, a macro, a distressed investor - she can be anything, just don't pretend to be something she is not.

4. Yeah, let's just observe for the next 5 years. Just as you think I'm too hard on her, I think you are going too easy on her. The investment management industry already has a pretty bad rep of rent seeking, and I might have become overly skeptical (hopefully not cynical) given the amount of bullshit I've seen in the industry over the decades.

Peace, and it's been interesting exchanging views with you.
Just a small point, technology trends changes rapidly right? (now the "Metaverse" is suddenly all the rage) New disruptive companies get listed every year (Moderna was only listed in Dec 2018), and relative valuation changes all the time. Overtime, long-term winners reveal themselves and pretenders get exposed. Having some leeway to change your mind when the facts change is important when investing in bleeding edge technology companies. 

Maybe I'm too easy on her, but I try to assume the best of intentions unless proven otherwise. 

Peace. 

PS: some fun on recent earnings:

(12-11-2021, 09:56 PM)Wildreamz Wrote: [ -> ]Just a small point, technology trends changes rapidly right? (now the "Metaverse" is suddenly all the rage) New disruptive companies get listed every year (Moderna was only listed in Dec 2018), and relative valuation changes all the time. Overtime, long-term winners reveal themselves and pretenders get exposed. Having some leeway to change your mind when the facts change is important when investing in bleeding edge technology companies. 

Maybe I'm too easy on her, but I try to assume the best of intentions unless proven otherwise. 

Peace. 

PS: some fun on recent earnings:


Yes, technology changes rapidly (more rapidly than previous, at least), but surely not to the extent that justifies a 60-70% turnover? It's a subjective assessment, and everyone will have his or her own view of reasonableness.

I'm the opposite of you haha - in investing at least, I assume the worst of intentions unless proven otherwise. Just too many bad actors in this business, the stakes are big, and there's big rewards for bad behavior (with considerable lower risks, because the regulators all over the world don't seem to be too on the ball).
60-70% is definitely within reason. Not all companies are Amazons; even Amazon might not be the best buy at all times (e.g. in 2015-2017 when Shopify was available). An astute tech investor needs to be on top of the winds of change. 

She does trade in and out of even her "high conviction names" too much however. I bet she would have done much better for herself if she just leaves her best ideas alone (e.g. Tesla, Nvidia).
(15-11-2021, 01:06 PM)Wildreamz Wrote: [ -> ]60-70% is definitely within reason. Not all companies are Amazons; even Amazon might not be the best buy at all times (e.g. in 2015-2017 when Shopify was available). An astute tech investor needs to be on top of the winds of change. 

She does trade in and out of even her "high conviction names" too much however. I bet she would have done much better for herself if she just leaves her best ideas alone (e.g. Tesla, Nvidia).

When they trade in and out they are just like any other "HEDGE FUND" 
The big money in stocks is IPOs and then after that "tech" stocks which you can then hype it up as valuation no longer matters. 

Many forgot the 2000 dotcom, Nasdaq went from ~7.5k to ~2k in 2002 before starting recovery. IMHO this will happen again and common retail investors in Tesla and other tech share/crypto bulls will bear that brunt of that big drop.  Big funds like ARK wont be affected as they can always quickly sell down and go to cash. I bet they are selling tesla together with Musk as we speak. 

Property related sectors may be hit hard too especially if interest rates are "FORCED" to rise due to uncontrolled inflation. Even worse will be those investor speculators buying land or MANA in Decentraland.

Look at the recent ridiculous jump in Rivian after IPO, its really a hype market now, just buy any new tech you WILL make money. I bet ARk has jumped into that big time as well.

FED has already started tapering this month and you can see cryptos taking a big hit (though they have a million other excuses to explain it) Will ARK take a big hit next year if the FEB 2000 dotcom crash is repeated? Akan datang..
(20-11-2021, 04:04 PM)BlueKelah Wrote: [ -> ]..

Big funds like ARK wont be affected as they can always quickly sell down and go to cash. I bet they are selling tesla together with Musk as we speak. 

..

You can track her holdings here, updated daily: https://cathiesark.com/ark-combined-holdings-of-tsla

No need for guess work Smile
(20-11-2021, 09:09 PM)Wildreamz Wrote: [ -> ]
(20-11-2021, 04:04 PM)BlueKelah Wrote: [ -> ]..

Big funds like ARK wont be affected as they can always quickly sell down and go to cash. I bet they are selling tesla together with Musk as we speak. 

..

You can track her holdings here, updated daily: https://cathiesark.com/ark-combined-holdings-of-tsla

No need for guess work Smile

so looks like she was selling from 5.4m to 2.7m , with small selldown to 5m in mid april then stayed ~5m till around July then continued to keep selling until today 2.7m half the peak amount. To note maintained around 7% of Tesla in portfolio allocation all year with some dips to 6%. In this time Tesla stock has gone from 660 to 1.2k range(~2x)

so ARK only sold around 100m shares since the big dips from musk twitter pool was to sell and when he started selling. So they did sell down on the news rather than buy the dip. but seems most of the divestment this year was to maintain the portfolio allocation percentage.
(20-11-2021, 11:08 PM)BlueKelah Wrote: [ -> ].. but seems most of the divestment this year was to maintain the portfolio allocation percentage.


In short, she started off with 8.16% of total allocation (2020-08-21), and ended off with 8.03% (2021-11-19).
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/arkk

I thought Cathie Wood is the new Henry Blodget. Maybe not, she falls too fast.

(an excerpt from Bull by Maggie Mahar below)

In retrospect, Henry Blodget understood the role he had played in the bull
market of the nineties. Sitting in a Greenwich Village café early in 2002, he
reflected on his career.
“Have you ever read John Kenneth Galbraith’s book about the history
of bubbles?” he asked, referring to the Harvard economist’s A Short History
of Financial Euphoria.
“Well, I hadn’t—until recently. I just finished it,” Blodget admitted,
with a pained smile. “It’s amazing how Galbraith spells it all out—what
happens in every bubble, every time. He’s almost yawning as he lays it out:
First some new thing comes along and captures the public’s imagination.
Then everyone starts making money. After that, some person of average intelligence is held up as a genius.”
Blodget raised his hand: “Hi, that was me,” he said with a sardonic,
half-embarrassed smile.

Side note: Henry Blodget story ended but Amazon turned out to be the Amazon of today. Almost none saw it coming then. And now Amazon is being used as the prime example of long outstanding business that made spent years in red.....
In 1720 during the South Sea Bubble...
Perhaps the most remarkable scam was a company with no stated purpose at all. The prospectus coyly hinted that the company had been organized "for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody knows what it is."

In June 1983 at the height of the new-issues craze a company announced on the front page of its prospectus...
"This offering is a securities of a start-up company with no operating history and no plan of operation: the company will not engage in any business whatever until after the completion of this offering."

Above are excerpts from the book Markets, Mobs & Mayhem , Robert Menschel

Fast Forward to 2020/2021

"What is a SPAC? A SPAC, or Special Purpose Acquisition Corporation is a company that raises money through an IPO for the sole business purpose of acquiring an existing private company at some point in the future. Therefore, bringing that private company to the public markets. This is why people also refer to a SPAC as a "blank check company."

Sound familiar ?
Pages: 1 2 3 4