Cathie Wood, not possible to pick stocks

[Zathras]

That is a bloodbath, sheeze

Not really.
It is a slanted way of showing stocks. No stock, ever, would show a positive percentage by this measure. And when you only show the stocks you want to show as ‘losers’ then there is no context.

For example. Berkshire is down about 11% of their highs. Does that mean its a bad stock? No.
Limited info, with no context, can lead to very inaccurate conclusions.

 

[marko]

My impression of ARK is that it is a highly speculative, high risk, high reward fund tilted toward professional investors.

I did find her recent CNBC interview in Miami two weeks ago a bit distressing; she appeared distracted and defensive.

Not for the meek or mom and pop betting their life savings. Caveat Emptor!

 

[copyright1997reloaded]

Even though I've been dissing ARKK for quite some time, I just started a position (a bit under $45).

I don't have a long term conviction on this, and would not be surprised to see if considerably lower. Having said that, it can run 10+ without even reaching its 180 day downtrend line.

 

[Freedom56]

My impression of ARK is that it is a highly speculative, high risk, high reward fund tilted toward professional investors.

I did find her recent CNBC interview in Miami two weeks ago a bit distressing; she appeared distracted and defensive.

Not for the meek or mom and pop betting their life savings. Caveat Emptor!

A professional investor would not invest in ARK. Cathy Wood is the new Henry Blodget replacing the king of bubbles as the new queen of bubbles. What ARK investors don't realize is the fund can easily drop below $20 and most of the holdings can still be overvalued.

 

[Phroig]

Even though I've been dissing XXXX for quite some time, I just started a position .

That's the opposite of pump and dump! What's the term for something like that?

 

[jazz4cash]

So confused…. I’ll probably NEVER remember correct spelling of her name.
Kathy Wood
Kathie Woods
Cathy Woods
Cathie Woods

 

[NW-Bound]

So confused…. I’ll probably NEVER remember correct spelling of her name.
Kathy Wood
Kathie Woods
Cathy Woods
Cathie Woods

None of the above.

It's Cathie Wood.

Her full name is Catherine Duddy Wood.

 

[Magus]

Not really.
It is a slanted way of showing stocks. No stock, ever, would show a positive percentage by this measure. And when you only show the stocks you want to show as ‘losers’ then there is no context.

For example. Berkshire is down about 11% of their highs. Does that mean its a bad stock? No.
Limited info, with no context, can lead to very inaccurate conclusions.

While I don’t disagree in theory, when your median stock pick is down 65% when the overall stock market is down 15%, I think bloodbath is an apt description.

 

[luckydude]

None of the above.

It's Cathie Wood.

Her full name is Catherine Duddy Wood.

The way things are going with her funds, Dud Wood would be a more apt name for her.

 

[Koolau]

While I don’t disagree in theory, when your median stock pick is down 65% when the overall stock market is down 15%, I think bloodbath is an apt description.

So far, I haven't even looked at my holdings. I'll be getting my quarterlies at the end of June. Hopefully any red ink will be just that: Ink, not blood!

 

[copyright1997reloaded]

That's the opposite of pump and dump! What's the term for something like that?

puke and pull?

Just sold my position in $51.40 range.
All hail ARK.

 

[Hyestar]

Which stocks?

I’ve done a very good job picking stocks in the past and will continue to do so. I prefer dividend Aristocrats - companies who have increased their dividends for the past 25 years.

Interested in which stocks you have in your dividend portfolio?

I’m taking a beating this year (as are many). With 12 years till 65 I will hopefully recover.

My portfolio:

AAPL 1500 shares
AMZN 50 shares
GOOGL 50 shares
MSFT 500 shares
FB 200 shares
UPS 200 shares
F 1000 shares
TSLA 125 shares
ARKK 100 shares
ARKF 100 shares
ARKG 100 shares
XLE 250 shares
XLF 250 shares
VOO 500 shares
VOOV 250 shares

I was so close to going all cash in January but caved to the conventional wisdom. I went from 1.7M down to 1.4M now. Down 18% YTD

What would you do with 12 years to go. (I put in 64K a year with my companies match.)

 

[tenant13]

I bought some shares of 3 ARK funds - somewhere before the peak. I still have them. I never buy more of anything than I can totally lose so it doesn't matter how low are they now and because I personally like CW's investing philosophy I'm willing to give her (much) more time. If this was a regular brokerage I would have sold and write off the losses alas it's in tIRA...

Most of my funds are quite boring but I LOVE playing with money and over the years I did quite well picking my own stocks and investing in other stuff. ARK seems to be one of the losers for now but I've been sitting on substantial losses with Exxon for the last few years. Not only has it bounced back but I actually made money holding it.

 

[joesxm3]

I got into ARKK and ARKG after what seemed to be a nasty price drop, but I am currently down at least 35%. Not a huge position, maybe 3% of total portfolio.

I put it in my HSA and ROTH so I won't have to pay tax on the exponential profits.

I think the Ark thesis makes sense, but I have to admit that if I had stuck to my previous paranoid 20% equity allocation until now I would be better off. I think my newly acquired disruptive stock holdings are down about 20% compared to 14% or 15% for the Fidelity total market fund that used to be my massive holding.

We shall have to see if the high growth stock pump back faster when the time comes.

My gene editing stocks are really crushed, but they are less than 1% of my portfolio and I plan on holding them until one makes some huge breakthrough, like lottery tickets.

 

[tenant13]

I got into ARKK and ARKG after what seemed to be a nasty price drop, but I am currently down at least 35%. Not a huge position, maybe 3% of total portfolio.

I put it in my HSA and ROTH so I won't have to pay tax on the exponential profits.

I think the Ark thesis makes sense, but I have to admit that if I had stuck to my previous paranoid 20% equity allocation until now I would be better off. I think my newly acquired disruptive stock holdings are down about 20% compared to 14% or 15% for the Fidelity total market fund that used to be my massive holding.

We shall have to see if the high growth stock pump back faster when the time comes.

My gene editing stocks are really crushed, but they are less than 1% of my portfolio and I plan on holding them until one makes some huge breakthrough, like lottery tickets.

From the financial point of view investing in these untested, disruptive stocks, funds (and crypto currencies, guilty!) may make very little sense. But I've never been a true Bogglehead and I just really LIKE them. They're techy and very forward looking and that's what draws me to them. But I also enjoy perusing https://pessimistsarchive.substack.com/ so maybe that has something to do with it...

 

[jazz4cash]

Interested in which stocks you have in your dividend portfolio?



I’m taking a beating this year (as are many). With 12 years till 65 I will hopefully recover.



My portfolio:



AAPL 1500 shares

AMZN 50 shares

GOOGL 50 shares

MSFT 500 shares

FB 200 shares

UPS 200 shares

F 1000 shares

TSLA 125 shares

ARKK 100 shares

ARKF 100 shares

ARKG 100 shares

XLE 250 shares

XLF 250 shares

VOO 500 shares

VOOV 250 shares



I was so close to going all cash in January but caved to the conventional wisdom. I went from 1.7M down to 1.4M now. Down 18% YTD



What would you do with 12 years to go. (I put in 64K a year with my companies match.)

Shares don’t have a lot of context here. I’m curious how diversified you are…..I see a lot of tech but them you have some broad index funds too.

 

[NW-Bound]

The problem with "disruptive technology" stocks is that they are often way, way overvalued. And I am talking about companies with real products, not some companies not yet with a product and who should not be public.

An example is Cisco. Back in 1999, the Internet traffic was doubling every few weeks. Instead of buying phony dot-coms, many people including myself bought "real" companies such as Cisco who built hardware for the Internet infrastructure.

After the dot-com and tech bubble crash, the phony dot-coms went bankrupt, and Cisco was still standing, and doing well until today.

The problem is that Cisco share price got to $77 in March 2000. It crashed to as low as $10. And after 22 years, today Cisco is at $49.

One would be way better off buying the index. Or Walmart. Or Home Depot. Or any other non-disruptive companies.

 

[tenant13]

The problem with "disruptive technology" stocks is that they are often way, way overvalued. And I am talking about companies with real products, not some companies not yet with a product and who should not be public.

An example is Cisco. Back in 1999, the Internet traffic was doubling every few weeks. Instead of buying phony dot-coms, many people including myself bought "real" companies such as Cisco who built hardware for the Internet infrastructure.

After the dot-com and tech bubble crash, the phony dot-coms went bankrupt, and Cisco was still standing, and doing well until today.

The problem is that Cisco share price got to $77 in March 2000. It crashed to as low as $10. And after 22 years, today Cisco is at $49.

One would be way better off buying the index. Or Walmart. Or Home Depot. Or any other non-disruptive companies.

This is a great example of why one should be careful with the untested equities. To me it's kind of like giving money to charities - with a potential of earning my donation back.

 

[NW-Bound]

Out of curiosity, I just compared the performance of Cisco with Hormel. Yes, Hormel, the guy who makes Spam.

$10K invested in Cisco in Jan 2000 -> $12,639 with dividend reinvestment, as of today

$10K invested in Hormel in Jan 2000 -> $156,322 with dividend reinvestment

 

[RobbieB]

Yeah Spam. Who'da thunk it?

But now people are making sushi out of it eh?

 

[NW-Bound]

Spam beats the pants off high-tech routers and Internet switches.

Long live Spam!


PS. The above said, I don't remember when I sold Cisco after 2000, but I bought it back a year or two ago and still have it.

And I bought Hormel a couple of years ago, but "lost" it via a covered call getting assigned recently. Will look to buy Hormel back via a put.

PPS. Cisco now has a P/E of 18, while Hormel's is 30. Maybe I don't want to buy Hormel back. Cisco also pays a dividend of 3%, while Hormel pays 2%.

 

[RobbieB]

Hormel has always been big into pork, they know the pork business.

Cisco has always been into networking, they know the internet business.

Yeah, both are good companies and know their business, but people and pork go back further than people and the internet.

History? Luck?

I dunno, but spam sushi is not something I would foresee -

 

[jim584672]

She picks the hottest meme stocks around as the strategy. Not so good when Jerome takes away the punch bowel.

 

[NW-Bound]

Hormel has always been big into pork, they know the pork business.

Cisco has always been into networking, they know the internet business.

Yeah, both are good companies and know their business, but people and pork go back further than people and the internet.

History? Luck?

I dunno, but spam sushi is not something I would foresee -

Surely, both Cisco and Hormel are good companies, with products widely used.

It's not Cisco's fault that investors bid its stock to sky-high valuation in 2000. Cisco's stock was so expensive in 2000 that it took 20 years for the company to grow into its valuation.

About history and luck, history has shown us time and time again that high P/E stocks tend to revert back to the normal valuation.

What's hard is knowing when they do that. Timing it requires luck.

 

[Almost There 2021]

Cathy Wood comments

Remember when Amazon was $18.00. People claimed it was a loss. CW is an open minded investor, risk adverse and transparent. The people who invest with her are told by her that you will become wealthy in time or will lose your investment. How many other investment analysts will be this honest?

I am too risk adverse for ARKK but I wish her well and is extremely successful..