ARK Innovation Has Likely Been a Disappointment for Most Investors

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#11
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.
Reply
#12
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:

“If you buy a business just because it’s undervalued, then you have to worry about selling it when it reaches its intrinsic value. That’s hard. But if you can buy a few great companies, then you can sit on your ass. That’s a good thing.” - Charlie Munger
Reply
#13
(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).
Reply
#14
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).
“If you buy a business just because it’s undervalued, then you have to worry about selling it when it reaches its intrinsic value. That’s hard. But if you can buy a few great companies, then you can sit on your ass. That’s a good thing.” - Charlie Munger
Reply
#15
(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..
Virtual currencies are worth virtually nothing.
http://thebluefund.blogspot.com
Reply
#16
(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
“If you buy a business just because it’s undervalued, then you have to worry about selling it when it reaches its intrinsic value. That’s hard. But if you can buy a few great companies, then you can sit on your ass. That’s a good thing.” - Charlie Munger
Reply
#17
(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.
Virtual currencies are worth virtually nothing.
http://thebluefund.blogspot.com
Reply
#18
(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).
“If you buy a business just because it’s undervalued, then you have to worry about selling it when it reaches its intrinsic value. That’s hard. But if you can buy a few great companies, then you can sit on your ass. That’s a good thing.” - Charlie Munger
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)