Innovation Is Inherently Controversial
etftrends.com
Innovation Is Inherently Controversial
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial
#2The way Cathie Wood manages ARK strikes me as institutional size day trading, and having a “five year vision” is no excuse to catch falling knives or accumulate recklessly.
Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial
#3Generally speaking, once a fund reaches the level outperformance of ARK, they underperform the market. Only time will tell if she was just lucky or actually had any kind of edge. It's usually the former.
Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial
#4The way Cathie Wood manages ARK strikes me as institutional size day trading, and having a “five year vision” is no excuse to catch falling knives or accumulate recklessly.
I don’t know enough about this fund to agree or disagree, but I will say that this “selling to take profits” idea mentioned in the article really rubs me the wrong way: in my experience that’s not something people interested in long term plays do.
Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial
#5The way Cathie Wood manages ARK strikes me as institutional size day trading, and having a “five year vision” is no excuse to catch falling knives or accumulate recklessly.
[deleted]
Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial
#6The way Cathie Wood manages ARK strikes me as institutional size day trading, and having a “five year vision” is no excuse to catch falling knives or accumulate recklessly.
It's speculation, marketing, and size (as you suggest). Ambiguous words like "innovation" help them build a lot of FOMO for their holdings.
Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial
#7From the article: "3D printing is really a subset of autonomous technology and robotics."
Interesting to pick up on how she maps investments across "innovation themes" like robotics, AI, etc admittedly without deep domain knowledge herself, depending on the input of analysts.
Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial
#8Generally speaking, once a fund reaches the level outperformance of ARK, they underperform the market. Only time will tell if she was just lucky or actually had any kind of edge. It's usually the former.
> Generally speaking, once a fund reaches the level outperformance of ARK, they underperform the market.
Source for this? It would make sense to me if your claim was that future performance for this cohort is average. But, you seem to making a stronger claim -- that is, this cohort of outperforming funds performs worse than average going forward.
Re: Innovation Is Inherently Controversial
#9The way Cathie Wood manages ARK strikes me as institutional size day trading, and having a “five year vision” is no excuse to catch falling knives or accumulate recklessly.
I don’t know enough about this fund to agree or disagree, but I will say that this “selling to take profits” idea mentioned in the article really rubs me the wrong way: in my experience that’s not something people interested in long term plays do.
Kelly betting straightforwardly has you reduce your position size as your edge goes down, which happens when the price moves in your favor more than the fundamentals have changed. It's exactly correct.